Robert Jenrick RIPS into David Lammy over scrapping jury trials: ‘Labour has NO shame!’

In a fiery exchange in the House of Commons, Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick launched a blistering attack on Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy over Labour’s opposition to his plans to reform the criminal court system, accusing the opposition of having “no shame” for their stance on jury trials.

Jenrick outlined his ambitious reform plans, which are rooted in the recent Independent Review of Criminal Courts led by Sir Brian Leveson. With the criminal backlog in England and Wales currently at a record 78,000 cases, Jenrick emphasized that victims have been left waiting years for justice. He cited the story of Katie, a domestic abuse survivor who endured a six-year wait for her case to reach trial, as emblematic of a “systemic” problem that requires urgent reform.

Among the proposed changes, Jenrick plans to introduce Swift Courts, where cases with likely sentences of three years or less would be decided by a judge alone, cutting waiting times by an estimated 20%. Defendants’ right to elect jury trials in certain cases would also be restricted, while magistrates’ sentencing powers would increase to help alleviate pressure on Crown Courts.

“These reforms are bold, but they are necessary,” Jenrick said. “We must ensure that cases are dealt with proportionate to their severity and that victims get the swift justice they deserve.” He also announced multi-year funding for victim support services, amounting to a record £550 million investment.

However, David Lammy tore into Jenrick in a passionate response, branding the Justice Secretary a “lammy dodger” and accusing him of being absent during critical moments, including the accidental release of 12 prisoners. Lammy claimed that scrapping jury trials was a choice, not a necessity, and accused the government of prioritizing immigration enforcement over funding court sitting days.

“The truth is, scrapping juries is a choice,” Lammy declared. “The government could fund the courts properly, but it chooses not to. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.”

Lammy also highlighted what he sees as hypocrisy, citing Jenrick’s previous statements that criminal trials without juries are a “bad idea” and that jury trials act as a filter against prejudice. “Which is it? The real David Lammy, please stand up,” he challenged.

In response, Jenrick doubled down, insisting that his reforms are victim-centered and necessary to tackle the “emergency” in the courts. He reminded MPs that magistrates handle 90% of criminal cases, and only a small proportion ever go to jury trial. “This is not about scrapping jury trials for serious offenses like rape or murder—they will remain the cornerstone of our system,” he said.

The debate highlights the deep political and ideological divide over the future of jury trials in England and Wales. While Jenrick frames his reforms as a pragmatic response to a backlog and a modernizing of the system, Lammy paints them as an attack on centuries of legal tradition and a betrayal of victims’ rights.

With both sides digging in, the battle over the future of jury trials is far from over—and the Commons may witness many more heated clashes as the government seeks to legislate these sweeping

reforms.

Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available content from YouTube to provide a multi-dimensional perspective. It is not intended to attack, defame, or represent any individual, organization, company, government, or political party. All views are for informational purposes only.