Due Process

The Assisted Suicide Bill lost, the Chagos Surrender Bill abandoned, the proscription of Palestine Action ruled unlawful, the Epstein Class defeated in an actual war by Iran, and now Anna Mikhailova writes:

Dozens of Labour MPs are preparing to “kill off” the government’s controversial cut to jury trials when parliament returns next week.

The MPs have tabled an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that they are prepared to push to a vote if the government refuses to accept it. It is expected to be published on Friday and MPs will be canvassed for support on Monday.

The rebel amendment, which has been drafted by Labour MPs and senior lawyers, puts forward plans to introduce specialist rape courts, which would have both a jury and a specialist judge. It explicitly removes government clauses that would “restrict jury trials”.

The rebels believe that as many as 90 Labour MPs could back the amendment if it comes to a vote.

The bill would create judge-only trials for about half of those heard by juries at present in an attempt to cut the backlog in the crown courts, which stands at a record 80,000-plus cases. The judge-only trials would be for a range of offences that attract prison sentences of up to three years.

The amendment has been put forward for consideration by a committee of MPs, but supporters have made clear that they will force a vote in the Commons if the government does not back down. It is seen as the main route to “kill off” and defeat the controversial jury trials reforms, a separate source told The Times.

It is in the name of Charlotte Nichols, the MP who has accused the government of “weaponising” rape victims to justify the changes. Charlotte Nichols MP.

Last month she waived her right to anonymity to reveal that she had been raped and criticised Lammy for using crime victims as a “cudgel” to push through his reforms.

She said: “My amendment seeks to get the government to make good on the promise in our manifesto of specialist rape courts. We know that it’s that which will help ensure timely justice and that complainants and witnesses have the support to give their best evidence — reducing victim attrition in the process and retraumatisation as far as possible.”

Stella Creasy, another Labour MP who has campaigned on the issue, said: “It’s a false choice between supporting victims and supporting due process — there is a way forward to ensure both can be done as we seek to tackle the backlog in the courts, and amendments like this show that we are serious about doing so. I hope the government listens and recognises this is a constructive way forward.”

Kirsty Brimelow KC, the chair of the Bar Council, which represents barristers, said: “The government should do what it pledged in its 2024 manifesto and prioritise those cases of vulnerable people through a specialist court that would retain a jury and focus on sexual offences and domestic abuse cases.

“We all want to see an end to delays for victims, complainants and defendants so we should focus on what we know will work rather than hacking away at a constitutional cornerstone which reflects community participation in justice.”

While Peter Walker writes:

Labour MPs are hoping to hijack plans to cut back on jury trials in England and Wales by proposing specialist courts for sexual offences with fixed dates for trial.

Those behind the amendment want to block the wider plan to stop thousands of cases being potentially eligible for jury trials – a measure ministers say is needed to cut court backlogs – and they say the specialist courts alone could still solve much of the problem.

The government is braced for possible rebellions when the courts and tribunals bill returns to the Commons after Easter for its committee and report stages, when amendments are considered and, in some cases, voted on.

Backers of the new amendments said they believed 90 or more Labour MPs could either vote against the government or abstain if their demands were not met.

In a campaign coordinated between different factions of backbenchers, the first amendment would strike down the bill’s central aim: to remove the right of defendants in “either way” cases, where they can opt for a magistrate or jury trial, to pick the latter.

Even though judges can impose heavier sentences than magistrates, ministers say more people are opting for jury trials in the hope that the prolonged wait for the case to be heard could lead to the charges being dropped as victims and witnesses give up.

The second amendment, tabled by Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasy, would create specialist courts for cases involving sexual offending or domestic abuse, which would have time limits for cases to be prepared and a fixed trial date.

While sexual offences such as rape will still be tried by juries even if the bill is passed, ministers have consistently argued that one of the main reasons for the proposed changes is to speed up the progress of sexual cases through crown courts.

However, Nichols has argued that sexual offences are being “weaponised” by the government to force through the bill. Last month, the Warrington North MP told the Commons how she opposed the bill despite waiting more than 1,000 days for a trial in which the man accused of raping her was acquitted.

Nichols argues that given Labour promised in its manifesto to “fast-track rape cases” with specialist courts at every crown court in England and Wales, the amendment in her name would be the correct way to deal with the backlog.

“For me, the specialist rape courts would get rid of the need for the changes to jury trials,” Nichols said. “But it would be a significant enough win for victims that if the wider bill did still pass, we would have done enough that I could sleep at night.”

Some rebels behind the amendments have held talks with David Lammy, the justice secretary, and Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, who are understood to have not entirely ruled out some movement from the government.

Nichols said that if there was no movement, she and a large number of Labour MPs could defeat the government, given there were 10 Labour votes against and 90 abstentions at the second reading of the bill in March. “If ministers show no willingness to address people’s concerns, then you could end up with a lot of people who abstained at second reading as a show of good faith, now voting it down, and some who voted in favour deciding to abstain. The ball is very much in the government’s court now.”

A government official said ministers would continue to stay in touch with MPs, but added: “It remains the case that we need to make these necessary changes to jury trial thresholds so as to bring down the backlog of cases.”

So they have changed the reason again. Having been a matter of principle, it is now back to the backlog.