Labour MP Says He Will Break Whip For First Time In 15 Years To Oppose Jury Reforms
2 min read
A Labour MP has said he is prepared to break the whip for the first time since being elected in 2010 to oppose the government's plan to scale back jury trials.
Writing for The House on Thursday, Karl Turner described the proposals announced this week as "appalling", and warned that "many more" Labour backbenchers would join him in defying the government if they are put to a House of Commons vote.
Turner, MP for Kingston upon Hull East, argued that the plan to scrap jury trials for crimes carrying a likely sentence of three years or less would not reduce the court backlog, and risks "undermining" the legacy of justice secretary David Lammy.
“This House and the country more broadly will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous options available to this government to fix the backlog.
“If this is put to the House as primary legislation, I will break the whip to vote against any such bill, and so will many more Labour MPs," he wrote.
Last year, the Labour government asked retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson to produce ways of tackling the court backlog, with 80,000 cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown Court. He said "fundamental" reforms were needed to "reduce the risk of total system collapse", and put forward recommendations like jury-free trials.
This week, Lammy said reducing the use of jury trials was a "bold" but "necessary" step that will allow the state to deal with cases more quickly. More extreme offences such as rape and murder will still be put before a jury.
However, in a strongly-worded criticism of the approach, Turner wrote that while Leveson is a well-respected figure, the “outcry" from barristers, judges and others "cannot be ignored”.
The Labour MP, who described Lammy as a "pal" in an LBC interview, said that the court backlog is not being driven by jury trials but by restrictions on sitting days in court, adding that the government could go further to address "the inexplicable misuse of court time".
“Numerous questions still arise," he added.
"Will those who have opted for trial by jury have their rights respected? Or will that right be removed? If the government removes that right, courts face being overburdened with numerous appeals, becoming more inefficient as a result."
