Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Ministers have suffered a significant backbench rebellion against their plan to abolish jury trials for thousands of cases, but the legislation underpinning the proposal has comfortably passed its first big test in parliament.
The government’s flagship Courts and Tribunals Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 304 votes to 203 on Tuesday and will proceed to the committee stage in the parliamentary process.
However, 10 Labour MPs joined with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to vote against the sprawling legislation, which is the biggest overhaul of the criminal justice system in the modern era.
A further tranche of Labour MPs abstained. They were torn between unease about elements of the bill, such as the reduced access to jury trials and a potential fall in the number of defendants eligible for legal aid, while supporting other aspects such as a legal advisers service for rape victims.
Ninety Labour MPs had no vote recorded but officials highlighted that while some parliamentarians had abstained on principle, others had been granted permission to be absent for the vote for legitimate reasons, such as speaking events, overseas engagements and illness.
David Lammy, the justice secretary, faced fierce criticism in the Commons earlier on Tuesday. Karl Turner, a leader of the Labour rebels who ultimately abstained, labelled the government’s plans “unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary”. Turner said he believed the legislation would be amended at a later stage of the parliamentary process.
Two female Labour MPs who revealed they were survivors of rape spoke out on opposite sides of the debate.
Warrington North MP Charlotte Nichols accused Lammy of using victims as a “cudgel to drive through reforms that aren’t directly relevant to them” and said experiences like her own were being “weaponised”. She had not previously discussed her ordeal — which involved having to wait 1,088 days for her case to go to court — in parliament.
Natalie Fleet, MP for Bolsover, who has spoken about her experience of being groomed and raped, argued that the government was “stepping up for victims” with the bill.
Tory shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy accused ministers of “rushing” the proposed jury trial changes through parliament “at breakneck speed”.
Lammy insisted the spiralling court backlogs had to be tackled urgently as he urged MPs to back the bill.
While many parliamentarians and legal professionals agree with a substantial portion of the bill, the proposal to scrap juries for offences with potential sentences of three years or less has led to a backlash across Whitehall and the industry.
Judges, barristers and lawyers have criticised the government for failing to provide evidence that getting rid of juries would have a significant impact on the case backlog. The backlog has hit about 80,000 cases and is expected to grow to about 100,000 by 2028.
A lack of funding in the justice system and the Covid-19 pandemic have led to a crisis in the criminal courts in England and Wales, with many victims and defendants waiting years for trials. Under the new legislation, a larger number of lesser offences will be pushed to magistrates’ courts in a drive to deal with them more quickly.
The government has already U-turned on initial plans to get rid of juries for offences with potential prison sentences of five years or less after moving closer to the recommendations of an independent review.
However, the legislation still goes further than what was proposed by retired High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, the author of that review. Leveson recommended a division in the Crown Court with a judge and two magistrates for those medium-level offences.