David Lammy’s Plan is a Constitutional Red Line
The proposal reportedly under consideration by David Lammy — to remove the right to a jury trial for offences carrying sentences of under three years — strikes at the heart of the British justice system. It is not a minor procedural reform. It is not an efficiency tweak. It is a fundamental assault on Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.
For clarity, the HRA 1998 Sched 1: Article 6(1), states:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
This wording is not optional. It is not flexible. It is not open to political reinterpretation.
It is binding law in the United Kingdom, enforced domestically through the Human Rights Act and internationally through the European Convention on Human Rights.
The key phrase is simple and devastating to Lammy’s proposal:
“Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing… by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
In Britain, the highest safeguard of independence and impartiality has always been the jury trial. Twelve ordinary citizens, not political actors, not judicial appointees, not individuals under pressure from Whitehall or activist groups, determine guilt or innocence.
Removing jury trials for a whole class of offences, especially those carrying up to three years’ imprisonment, does the following:
-
It undermines public confidence in the neutrality of the justice system.
-
It removes the primary defence against political influence in prosecutions involving speech, protest, or criticism of government.
-
It places far too much power in the hands of magistrates and judges, at a time when the public already perceives growing politicisation within the judiciary.
-
It breaches both the letter and the spirit of Article 6.
This is not abstract. Thousands of individuals are now being arrested or investigated for online posts that carry political implications. To remove the right to a jury in such cases is to remove the only protection ordinary citizens have against politically motivated charges.
A trial without a jury may still be a “hearing”, but it is not what the framers of the Convention intended when they guaranteed fairness, independence, and impartiality. Once the state can prosecute politically sensitive cases without the scrutiny of twelve citizens, the door to abuse opens, and history shows that door rarely closes again.
“Once the state can prosecute politically sensitive cases without the scrutiny of twelve citizens, the door to abuse opens — and it rarely closes again.” Jeremy Webber
This proposal will, and should, face immediate legal challenge.
More importantly, it must face overwhelming public opposition. If Britain still considers itself a free and democratic nation, this cannot stand.