A political row has erupted after leaked documents revealed Justice Secretary David Lammy’s suggestion that most criminal cases in England and Wales could move forward without juries—a proposal that has stunned commentators and legal experts alike.
The news surfaced earlier this week, instantly setting off fierce debate on the Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast, where columnists Sarah Vine and Peter Hitchens tore into the idea with unusual unity.
What the Leak Actually Revealed
The memo, obtained by The Times, laid out Lammy’s belief that the UK should not offer an automatic right to a jury trial.
Instead, juries would be kept only for the gravest crimes—murder, rape, manslaughter—while the majority of Crown Court cases would be heard solely by judges.
That shift would mean roughly three-quarters of defendants lose the long-standing protection of being judged by a group of their peers.
This proposal arrives at a moment when the criminal justice system is buckling under an unprecedented backlog: nearly 80,000 cases waiting, with some hearings being scheduled as far away as 2029.
Sarah Vine Warns of “Politicised Justice”
On the podcast, Sarah Vine said she understands the urgency of clearing the backlog but believes Lammy’s solution could leave defendants dangerously exposed.
She pointed to the sentencing that followed the Southport riots, saying the punishments handed out seemed markedly harsher than those given after later, similarly chaotic protests.
To her, it was a worrying sign of how easily political winds might sway judicial decision-making.
“If you strip away jury service,” she said, “you remove the protective layer that shields ordinary people from judges who may be influenced—intentionally or not—by the government of the day.”
Hitchens Says the Backlog Is the Government’s Fault
Peter Hitchens—never one to mince words—slammed Lammy’s proposal from a different angle.
He argued that the crisis wasn’t caused by juries at all but by years of governments failing to properly fund courts, prosecutors, and legal infrastructure.
To Hitchens, Lammy’s solution is simply punishing the public for governmental incompetence.
“Why should the constitution be rewritten because ministers behaved like buffoons?” he asked, adding that bad crime policies and underinvestment have long been the root of the problem.
Hitchens also suggested the ideas emerging from the current Labour administration seem to be surfacing “piece by piece,” none of which were spelled out in the manifesto voters approved.
And, he warned, the public may not realise how easily any one of them could someday end up in court themselves.
Legal Experts Sound the Alarm
The backlash outside the podcast circuit has been just as severe.
Senior legal figures have described Lammy’s leaked plans as the most serious attack on British liberty in eight centuries.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said the proposals “carry the stench of a coordinated attempt to hollow out public justice.”
Meanwhile, the Law Society called the approach extreme, insisting it stretches reform far beyond what is reasonable.
Hitchens went further still, claiming Lammy must have been pressured by the Treasury, framing the idea as less about efficiency and more about cutting costs.
“Justice isn’t cheap,” he said, “but without it, society stops being a place anyone wants to live.”
Want to Hear the Full Debate?
The episode also dives into another controversy: the NHS’s reintroduction of puberty blockers for children—a decision that triggered its own torrent of frustration from both commentators.
You can hear the full discussion by searching for Alas Vine & Hitchens on any podcast platform.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn