‘Lammy’s jury trial cuts risk worsening racial bias in justice system’

In 2017, David Lammy received deserved praise for his landmark review into the criminal justice system, which shone a light on the unequal treatment of minorities. One striking revelation was that jury trials were found to be one of the few parts of the system consistently free from racial bias, overall treating defendants equally, regardless of their ethnicity. In contrast, judges have been found to be significantly more likely to give jail sentences to Black, Asian and mixed ethnicity offenders than to white offenders for comparable crimes. As the then Shadow Justice Secretary concluded, juries were shown to “act as a filter for prejudice”.

Nine years on, Lammy now holds the government role he once aspired to, with the power to address many of the issues he previously highlighted. Yet instead of protecting juries, the Justice Secretary appears determined to sideline them. Under pressure to cut the courts backlog, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is proposing to almost halve the number of jury trials in England and Wales, giving magistrates and lone judges the power to decide the outcome of thousands more cases. Unlike juries, they do not reflect the diversity of modern Britain.

Given the findings of Lammy’s own review, these reforms are highly likely to increase the risk of racial bias, leaving ethnic minority defendants more vulnerable to miscarriages of justice. That is why I have coordinated a letter to the Justice Secretary, signed by ten Black Labour MPs, urging him to remove the plans for jury reform from the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

READ MORE: ‘Is there an ancient right to jury trial?’

Frustratingly, the government has already acknowledged the risk of increased racial bias, but this serious concern is being treated as an afterthought. Last month, courts minister Sarah Sackman revealed the MoJ intends to review the impact of judge-only trials on minorities, but only after the reforms take effect. This is a backwards approach: roll out the change nationally, then investigate its harm later. The problems identified in 2017 have not disappeared – if anything, the resurgence of racism makes the lessons of the Lammy Review more relevant than ever.

Ministers keep insisting that these reforms are necessary to tackle the Crown Court crisis. The backlog – now more than 80,000 cases and projected to rise to 100,000 by 2028 – is extremely serious. But, as expert legal charity JUSTICE sets out, juries are not the cause of these delays and cutting juries will make no significant dent in this backlog – rather, it will create a host of new problems.

The true source of the delays lies in brutal justice budget cuts from the 2010s, and successive governments’ failure to repair this gutting of the system. Sitting days have been capped, legal aid decimated, and buildings left to crumble. I welcome the additional resources the government has promised as part of the package of measures to address the backlog, but this is just a first step.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

I’ve seen in my own constituency how trial backlogs can be driven down without curtailing juries. Through pioneering fast-tracks trials and other practical measures, Liverpool crown court has cut the average wait from charge to trial to 206 days, compared to a national average of 321. Undermining the right to jury trial is not a solution to this crisis, it is a diversion from addressing its real causes.

Everyone deserves a fair trial, free from discrimination. Juries remain one of the most important mechanisms we have to protect that right. Any move to remove or restrict them – particularly in the face of persistent racial disparities – risks eroding trust and confidence in our public institutions and damaging the very legitimacy of the justice system.

I urge the government to withdraw these proposals and commit unequivocally to protecting one of our fundamental democratic rights.  

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].