The paper says that the prime minister, who is on a visit to China, said tackling a backlog that was forcing victims of violence against women and girls to lose faith and leave the justice system was a personal “fundamental argument of principle”, and suggested he would resist intense pressure from legal experts, rival MPs and members of his own ranks to row back on plans to limit jury trials:
Campaigners – including dozens of Labour MPs and peers from across the upper chamber – insist the reforms undermine a fundamental principle of the justice system and will not work. A report from the Institute for Government (IFG) last week said plans to introduce judge-only criminal trials in England and Wales would save less than 2% of time in crown courts.
...
While some sources have suggested the plans – proposed by Brian Leveson – could be watered down after a backlash, David Lammy, the justice secretary, is understood to be pushing ahead with them in their current form.
The plans include proposals for a new criminal court where judges will hear cases on their own, magistrates-only hearings for offences that carry a maximum sentence of two years or less, and judge-only trials for complex fraud cases. Leveson’s review recommended a single judge sitting with two people in a new “bench division” of the crown court, but Lammy scrapped the lay element.
The government said it had done its own impact assessment of the changes but would not publish it until the bill containing the proposals was ready. Starmer stressed that 90% of criminal cases were already heard in the magistrates court without a jury, and of the 10% that went to crown court, 7% pleaded guilty.
Starmer's intransigience on this underlines the anti-democratic nature of his government. There clearly is a problem with processing cases involving violence against women and girls through the system, but that should be tackled with increased investment not removing fundamental rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.