A Labour minister has robustly defended the government's contentious proposal to abolish jury trials for certain offences, asserting that judges equipped with extensive diversity training are well-prepared to deliver fair verdicts.
Defending the Judiciary Amid Backlash
Baroness Natalie Levitt, the Lords justice minister, faced peers in the upper chamber on Tuesday night following a significant backlash against the plans spearheaded by Justice Secretary David Lammy. The proposals aim to establish 'swift courts' in England and Wales where a judge would hear cases alone for less serious crimes.
Responding to concerns from fellow Labour MPs about potential prejudice within a predominantly non-diverse judiciary, Baroness Levitt expressed her confidence in a professional judiciary. She acknowledged that while the judiciary's diversity is not where we want it to be, it is improving and all judges undergo extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on different population groups.
Labour MPs Voice Fears of Discrimination
The defence from the minister came after strong criticism from within her own party. Earlier on Tuesday, Labour figures warned that the lack of diversity among judges could lead to discrimination against individuals from minority or poorer backgrounds.
Former Labour minister Dianne Abbott stated the entire House was worried that the public will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial is curtailed. MP Clive Efford feared that restricting trial by jury would place a specific class of people in judgment over others, while Stella Creasy questioned how the measure would address court backlogs fairly for minority communities.
A Barrister-Turned-Judge's Perspective
Baroness Levitt, a former criminal barrister who worked under Sir Keir Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, drew on her unique experience. She revealed that she once believed any attempt to alter jury trials was fundamentally wrong, but her perspective changed after becoming a Crown Court judge.
She recounted conversations with fellow judges who expressed disbelief that certain minor cases were being heard in the Crown Court at all. We are not sacrificing jury trials - of course we are not, she insisted, pointing out that 90% of criminal cases are already tried in magistrates' courts without juries. The question is, where do we draw the line? she asked peers.
Her remarks were a direct response to former Labour minister Lord Paul Boateng, who argued that juries of random, conscientious people are the best safeguard against an overmighty and oppressive state and the best link between ordinary people and the justice system.
The Scope of the Proposed Changes
Under the proposed reforms, jury trials would be scrapped for crimes likely to result in a sentence of less than three years. The most serious offences, including murder and rape, will continue to be heard by juries, as will lesser 'either-way' offences that carry the potential for longer prison terms.
Baroness Levitt, who was nominated for her peerage by the Prime Minister earlier this year and oversaw the CPS review of the Jimmy Savile scandal, concluded that the reform is a necessary adjustment to ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice.
