Differences Between Leveson and Lammy

Are the Government’s proposals radically to reduce a citizen’s right to trial by jury a “swift and fair plan to get justice for victims”, as the MoJ press release declared on 2nd December, or a poorly conceived, confused and untested set of measures which will have no real impact on the Crown Court backlog or the general, long term crisis that afflicts our once admired criminal justice system?   

What is the explanation for the significant difference between the leaked Lammy memorandum - which revealed a plan to eliminate trial by jury in all cases apart from murder, manslaughter, rape, or other offences meeting a public-interest threshold - and the formal announcement a week later?Cock-up or a deliberate plan designed to smooth the way for the actual proposals?  And will Labour backbenchers rebel in sufficient numbers to defeat the reform plans. To answer these and other questions generated by the furore over the Lammy proposals, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined by the current and past Chairs of the Criminal Bar Association, Riel Karmy-Jones KC and Chris Henley KC.  

Riel and Chris attack the proposals on the basis that neither the Leveson Report nor the Ministry of Justice have conducted any modelling capable of showing that slashing the right to jury trial will succeed in clearing the backlog, given the multiple other causes of delays in the criminal justice system, both at the pre-charge and post-charge phases. They also address the fact that jury trial is not in truth a “constitutional” right or one guaranteed by the ECHR and they challenge comparisons with Canada and New Zealand which have judge alone trials in serious cases without it being suggested that fair trials are incapable of being delivered.

For a further piece by retired Judge Geoffrey Rivlin KC attacking the Lammy and Leveson proposals see this - https://redlionchambers.substack.com/p/juries-and-judges-the-right-to-choose?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&utm_medium=email&r=4n6tab&triedRedirect=true

--   

Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain’s legal and political future.    What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain’s legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.   Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.    Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.  Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.    If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you’ll love Double Jeopardy.