The Prime Minister is under intense scrutiny after proposals emerged to remove most jury trials in England and Wales, sparking criticism from the very barristers’ chambers he once helped establish.
The plan, which would reserve jury trials only for the most serious crimes like murder, rape, or terrorism, has been called “wrong in principle” by legal experts.
Doughty Street Chambers Breaks Its Silence
Doughty Street Chambers, where Keir Starmer spent more than 15 years of his career, didn’t hold back.
The prominent human rights set, which counts Amal Clooney among its members, argued there is no evidence that limiting jury trials would clear the Crown Court backlog.
“Trial by jury is a deeply entrenched constitutional principle and anchors our liberal democracy,” the chambers said.
“These proposals are wrong in principle, and there is no evidence that they will resolve the current backlog.
Anyone working in the criminal justice system knows the problems are rooted in chronic underfunding over many years.”
Political Pressure Mounts
The criticism places extra pressure on Justice Secretary David Lammy, who is due to appear before MPs this week.
Officials expect him to argue that radical reforms are needed to deliver justice for victims, amid a record backlog of nearly 80,000 cases.
But the intervention has also provided ammunition for the Tories, who describe the plans as a personal embarrassment for Sir Keir Starmer.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Daily Mail: “The right to be tried by our peers has existed for over 800 years – it is not something to casually discard when the spreadsheets turn red.
Starmer and Lammy once understood this principle, but now they’ve sold it out.”
Wider Opposition Emerges
Labour MPs and judges have also voiced their objections.
Backbencher Karl Turner labeled the plan “utterly ridiculous” on social media, warning that scrapping jury trials would harm democracy and the justice system while barely easing the case backlog.
Even judges at Isleworth Crown Court recently reminded jurors of the importance of the jury trial system, signaling the depth of concern across the judiciary.
The Government’s Case
Despite the backlash, the Justice Secretary is set to argue in Parliament that only offences likely to result in more than five years’ imprisonment should be heard by juries.
The move goes further than a recommendation from retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson, who suggested only crimes with sentences under three years should bypass juries.
Lammy is expected to justify the change as necessary to speed up justice for thousands of victims waiting years for their cases to be heard.
Funding Versus Reform
Critics argue that the root cause of delays is not the jury system itself but chronic underfunding of courts over decades.
By focusing on removing rights rather than increasing resources, many see the plan as prioritising administrative convenience over the principles of British justice.
A Constitutional Debate
At the heart of the controversy is a question of principle: should centuries-old rights be compromised to address modern administrative challenges? Doughty Street Chambers and opponents across the political spectrum suggest the answer is a resounding no.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn