Nick Timothy: Labour’s attack on jury trials will change our Constitution
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nick Timothy is the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and MP for West Suffolk.
Labour are not only betraying the finest traditions of their own party, but also eight hundred years of legal heritage. The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta and began England’s escape from feudalism towards becoming a free society. It is an ancient legal right that should be protected. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers – Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan – would have dreamed of such ideological vandalism. But David Lammy is only too happy to take a wrecking ball to our constitution.
What makes this desecration of English liberty so shocking is the fact that the Government’s Bill does not even work on its own terms. We are told that the attack on jury trials is necessary to get the court backlog down. Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. The pandemic had an immense impact on our courts, along with the rest of the public realm. However, this is not new knowledge. If Labour believed this was necessary, then they should have put these changes in their manifesto. If they want proof this will work, then the proposals should have been put out to consultation. Labour decided not to do these things.
Ministers claim they are following the evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that stripping back jury trial rights will save twenty per cent of court time has been held up as proof. But Sir Brian’s number is simply a guess. As Sir Brian himself admitted, “How can you find evidence or data without doing it?” What we do have is the Impact Assessment bashed out by officials struggling to keep up with the Government’s efforts to rush the Bill through Parliament. Even their own modelling – if you can call it that – estimates the Crown court time saved will be 3.5 per cent. The Institute for Government calculated that it will actually be closer to one or two per cent.
The Bill will take just one day of oral evidence and give five days to committee members to run through the legislation line by line. That is less time than what was given to the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time spent on the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions Parliament has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.
When you look at what is happening in our courts, it is plain to see that juries are not the cause of the backlog nor an obstacle to resolving them. Over 64 Crown courtrooms were empty every day on average over the past year. That is twelve per cent of all Crown …
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nick Timothy is the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and MP for West Suffolk.
Labour are not only betraying the finest traditions of their own party, but also eight hundred years of legal heritage. The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta and began England’s escape from feudalism towards becoming a free society. It is an ancient legal right that should be protected. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers – Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan – would have dreamed of such ideological vandalism. But David Lammy is only too happy to take a wrecking ball to our constitution.
What makes this desecration of English liberty so shocking is the fact that the Government’s Bill does not even work on its own terms. We are told that the attack on jury trials is necessary to get the court backlog down. Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. The pandemic had an immense impact on our courts, along with the rest of the public realm. However, this is not new knowledge. If Labour believed this was necessary, then they should have put these changes in their manifesto. If they want proof this will work, then the proposals should have been put out to consultation. Labour decided not to do these things.
Ministers claim they are following the evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that stripping back jury trial rights will save twenty per cent of court time has been held up as proof. But Sir Brian’s number is simply a guess. As Sir Brian himself admitted, “How can you find evidence or data without doing it?” What we do have is the Impact Assessment bashed out by officials struggling to keep up with the Government’s efforts to rush the Bill through Parliament. Even their own modelling – if you can call it that – estimates the Crown court time saved will be 3.5 per cent. The Institute for Government calculated that it will actually be closer to one or two per cent.
The Bill will take just one day of oral evidence and give five days to committee members to run through the legislation line by line. That is less time than what was given to the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time spent on the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions Parliament has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.
When you look at what is happening in our courts, it is plain to see that juries are not the cause of the backlog nor an obstacle to resolving them. Over 64 Crown courtrooms were empty every day on average over the past year. That is twelve per cent of all Crown …
Nick Timothy: Labour’s attack on jury trials will change our Constitution
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
Nick Timothy is the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and MP for West Suffolk.
Labour are not only betraying the finest traditions of their own party, but also eight hundred years of legal heritage. The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta and began England’s escape from feudalism towards becoming a free society. It is an ancient legal right that should be protected. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers – Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and James Callaghan – would have dreamed of such ideological vandalism. But David Lammy is only too happy to take a wrecking ball to our constitution.
What makes this desecration of English liberty so shocking is the fact that the Government’s Bill does not even work on its own terms. We are told that the attack on jury trials is necessary to get the court backlog down. Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. The pandemic had an immense impact on our courts, along with the rest of the public realm. However, this is not new knowledge. If Labour believed this was necessary, then they should have put these changes in their manifesto. If they want proof this will work, then the proposals should have been put out to consultation. Labour decided not to do these things.
Ministers claim they are following the evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that stripping back jury trial rights will save twenty per cent of court time has been held up as proof. But Sir Brian’s number is simply a guess. As Sir Brian himself admitted, “How can you find evidence or data without doing it?” What we do have is the Impact Assessment bashed out by officials struggling to keep up with the Government’s efforts to rush the Bill through Parliament. Even their own modelling – if you can call it that – estimates the Crown court time saved will be 3.5 per cent. The Institute for Government calculated that it will actually be closer to one or two per cent.
The Bill will take just one day of oral evidence and give five days to committee members to run through the legislation line by line. That is less time than what was given to the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time spent on the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions Parliament has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.
When you look at what is happening in our courts, it is plain to see that juries are not the cause of the backlog nor an obstacle to resolving them. Over 64 Crown courtrooms were empty every day on average over the past year. That is twelve per cent of all Crown …
0 Comments
0 Shares
29 Views
0 Reviews
