David Lammy's recent proposal to curb the right to trial by jury has left many questioning whether he is genuinely committed to reform or simply looking for ways to advance his own agenda. As foreign secretary, Lammy was widely regarded as a rising star within the Labour party, with a reputation for being tough on crime and passionate about social justice.
However, his appointment as justice secretary has seen him take a drastic shift in tone, embracing measures that were once anathema to him. The proposal to introduce judge-only trials for certain cases is particularly egregious, given Lammy's well-documented opposition to the idea just months ago. It seems that the lure of power and control has won out over his earlier principles.
Underpinning this shift in stance is a deeply flawed understanding of how the justice system works. Lammy has consistently failed to acknowledge the root causes of the court backlog, which is largely due to inadequate funding and resources. Instead, he has opted for short-sighted sticking plaster solutions that will merely delay the inevitable collapse of the system.
The argument that judges are somehow more impartial than jurors is also a dubious one. Magistrates, who are often drawn from the same communities as jurors, can bring a level of local knowledge and understanding that can be just as valuable. Judges, on the other hand, are often isolated figures who have little connection to the people they preside over.
Lammy's own reasoning for supporting these reforms is equally flimsy. He cites the principle of "justice delayed is justice denied," but this ignores the fact that many defendants are already unable to access a fair trial due to lack of resources, lack of representation, or other systemic issues.
The real tragedy here is that Lammy's proposals have been seized upon by Conservative backbenchers as a way to score points against his own party. Robert Jenrick's condescending tone and his attempts to appear sympathetic to the plight of defendants ring hollow, given his earlier stance on summary justice for asylum seekers.
Even within Lammy's own party, there is growing unease about his proposals. Diane Abbott has rightly pointed out that judge-only trials will only serve to increase miscarriages of justice, while Richard Burgon has highlighted the risks of politicizing the judiciary.
Ultimately, it seems that David Lammy is being offered a lifeline by his colleagues – a temporary reprieve from implementing these reforms until the system is somehow magically sorted out. But this is little more than a Band-Aid solution, and it will only serve to further erode public trust in an already beleaguered justice system.
It's time for Lammy to return to his roots as a champion of social justice, rather than peddling superficial reforms that will do nothing to address the real issues facing our courts. The right to trial by jury is not something to be taken lightly, and it requires thoughtful consideration and genuine commitment to reform – rather than desperate attempts to cling to power.
However, his appointment as justice secretary has seen him take a drastic shift in tone, embracing measures that were once anathema to him. The proposal to introduce judge-only trials for certain cases is particularly egregious, given Lammy's well-documented opposition to the idea just months ago. It seems that the lure of power and control has won out over his earlier principles.
Underpinning this shift in stance is a deeply flawed understanding of how the justice system works. Lammy has consistently failed to acknowledge the root causes of the court backlog, which is largely due to inadequate funding and resources. Instead, he has opted for short-sighted sticking plaster solutions that will merely delay the inevitable collapse of the system.
The argument that judges are somehow more impartial than jurors is also a dubious one. Magistrates, who are often drawn from the same communities as jurors, can bring a level of local knowledge and understanding that can be just as valuable. Judges, on the other hand, are often isolated figures who have little connection to the people they preside over.
Lammy's own reasoning for supporting these reforms is equally flimsy. He cites the principle of "justice delayed is justice denied," but this ignores the fact that many defendants are already unable to access a fair trial due to lack of resources, lack of representation, or other systemic issues.
The real tragedy here is that Lammy's proposals have been seized upon by Conservative backbenchers as a way to score points against his own party. Robert Jenrick's condescending tone and his attempts to appear sympathetic to the plight of defendants ring hollow, given his earlier stance on summary justice for asylum seekers.
Even within Lammy's own party, there is growing unease about his proposals. Diane Abbott has rightly pointed out that judge-only trials will only serve to increase miscarriages of justice, while Richard Burgon has highlighted the risks of politicizing the judiciary.
Ultimately, it seems that David Lammy is being offered a lifeline by his colleagues – a temporary reprieve from implementing these reforms until the system is somehow magically sorted out. But this is little more than a Band-Aid solution, and it will only serve to further erode public trust in an already beleaguered justice system.
It's time for Lammy to return to his roots as a champion of social justice, rather than peddling superficial reforms that will do nothing to address the real issues facing our courts. The right to trial by jury is not something to be taken lightly, and it requires thoughtful consideration and genuine commitment to reform – rather than desperate attempts to cling to power.
I'm really disappointed in what's going on with David Lammy's proposal 
. It seems like he's just trying to push his own agenda instead of really working towards justice 
. The thing is, judges and magistrates aren't so different, you know? Both have their own biases and experiences that can impact their decisions 
.
. It's all about funding and resources, but Lammy's just proposing sticking plaster solutions 
. And what about people who genuinely can't access a fair trial? 
. I wish Lammy would get back to his roots and really focus on making justice better for everyone 
. The right to trial by jury is a big deal, and it deserves thoughtful consideration 
. We need someone who's going to genuinely work towards reform, not just cling to power 
I'm really worried about this one, mate. It seems like David Lammy's lost sight of what's important - social justice for all. He used to be all about giving people a fair shot, but now it feels like he's just trying to control the narrative. Like, introducing judge-only trials? That's not reforming the system, that's just making it more biased and unfair. 
. It's like they think we're all just blind followers who won't question their motives.
It's like Lammy thinks we're all just going to magically forget about those systemic issues if he throws some fancy words at us.
. And what really grinds my gears is that his own party members are starting to speak out against him - Diane Abbott and Richard Burgon being two of the few who seem to actually care about doing what's right.
.
I'm so worried about David Lammy's proposal on judge-only trials 
. Instead, he's offering short-sighted solutions that will only delay the problem 
.
. Judges might be impartial on paper, but they're often isolated figures who don't really get what's going on in their communities 
.
.
. The public trust in the justice system is already so low 
. We need real change, not superficial fixes that will do nothing to address the real issues 
. Let's hope Lammy gets back on track and starts listening to the people who really matter 
.
. I hope someone from within Lammy's party steps up and calls him out on this 
. And don't even get me started on his reasoning - "justice delayed is justice denied" sounds like a cop-out to me 
.
Lammy needs to go back to basics and remember why he got into politics in the first place – to make a difference for people's lives, not just to cling to power. 
and now hes trying to pawn off his reforms on us without even acknowledging the root causes of the problem. thats not reform, thats just more of the same old sticking plaster solutions 
we need someone who is genuinely committed to reforming the justice system, not just looking for ways to advance their own agenda 
... it just shows they're desperate to undermine his party's credibility 
. But we should be looking at ourselves, not just pointing fingers 
instead of addressing the root causes