Maya Chopra

The fight to protect our right to elect for jury trial continues today with the start of line-by-line scrutiny at Bill committee. Looking forward to fighting the good fight with @KieranMullanUK and @JoePJRobertson for His Majesty’s Opposition.

The Victims Commissioner backs limiting jury trials but won’t say she’d change her mind even if it won’t actually deliver faster justice for victims.

Senior retired judges have joined leading barristers in opposing the removal of the right to trial by jury in thousands of cases as the government faces a backbench rebellion. In a letter to The Times, senior judicial figures and lawyers warned that the plans were unworkable and suggested that politicians lacked trust in members of the public. “Victims, witnesses and defendants will still have to wait years, even under the government’s best-case scenario.” They said the change would increase waiting for trials by magistrates. “The experience that juries bring to trials is a better guarantee of fairness to all in a multicultural society than the narrower professional experience of judges,” the letter said. “Cutting juries out of the predicted 50 per cent of trials suggests a lack of trust by politicians in the public.” The letter is signed by seven senior retired judges including Peter Rook, formerly a senior judge at the Old Bailey, who is co-author of Sexual Offences: Law & Practice, a guide for judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers. It is also backed by Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chairwoman of The Criminal Bar Association, Kirsty Brimelow KC, chairwoman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, and the “leaders” who represent the interests of barristers of all six of the court circuits in England and Wales. Robert Rinder, the barrister and television presenter, has separately written to MPs describing the proposals as a “constitutional surrender”. He added: “It says that when the state seeks to take a person’s liberty, the voice of the public is optional.” Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East and a former shadow solicitor general, who has organised political opposition to the plans, said: “I’m confident that the rebellion is fairly sizeable. “Whether it’s enough to defeat the government on second reading … momentum is building and there is real confidence among parliamentary Labour Party members that we can amend at report stage.” Opponents say the reported delays to trials, not scheduled to start until 2030, are centred on London, where Labour cut the number of days criminal courts could sit after the election. Lammy stepped back from more radical plans to drop jury trials in all cases except murder, rape and manslaughter after a backlash from the legal profession when the proposals were leaked to The Times. The reforms mean that juries will no longer try cases involving offences such as assault, most drug cases, house burglaries, non-violent theft and some violent sexual crimes. Allegations of rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, the most serious drug offences, robbery and arson with intent to kill will continue to be tried by juries. The change will remove the right of defendants to elect crown court trials in so-called either-way cases that could be heard by magistrates, who will be given extended sentencing powers. Limiting jury trials to those likely to face longer sentences means serial offenders could be more likely to get a jury than a first-time defendant, claim critics. thetimes.com/article/1a3272…

It’s time to read the room, @DavidLammy. Nobody supports this plan. It will not reduce the backlog. It is not cost-effective. Worse still, it diminishes the long-held and much-celebrated democratic principle of trial by jury. It will destroy access to fair justice. Drop it.

@PeterStefanovi2 @mtpennycook

🚨CONTACT YOUR MP NOW before it’s too late - tag them to this film and ask them to oppose the Prime Ministers appalling plan to undermine and restrict this fundamental cornerstone of our democracy

Looking forward to getting to work!

Over 40 years after Scarman and nearly 30 years after Stephen Lawrence's murder the Met is still institutionally racist. It has added institutional misogyny and homophobia. 1/2 Met has ‘nowhere to hide’ after damning Casey report, say campaigners theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/m…

Absolutely true. A reminder to all aspiring or junior barristers - reach out!

@MaxJLHardy Agree with all of the other comments re coercive control/harassment. Stressful and difficult subject matter, but also usually a long period of time to consider and so much context to get to grips with.

Question for criminal barristers. What is an offence you really don't like litigating? For me it's aggravated burglary.

Almost everything that is wrong with the system of lay magistrates is neatly encapsulated in this post. I cannot imagine the representative body of any other judicial post publicly complaining that they are demoralised by a limitation on their powers to send people to prison.

Common Platform committal for sentence tomorrow. 4 offences. Common Platform sending sheet runs to 86 pages. Yes, 86. No wonder the mags clerks are striking.

An illustration of the crisis in criminal justice: We are working to capacity. All available judges, courts & barristers working flat out In the past two weeks, I have had two trials adjourned for “lack of court time” Each case is from 2019 and has been adjourned TWICE before.

THREAD: Energy Bill Support Grant. I have just been notified that I will get £67 a month off my energy bills under the govt scheme. For enormous numbers of people this support will be absolutely vital. But it won't be vital for everyone, and that includes me. (PLS RT) 1/

Each section reads like an episode description for a Westminster based sitcom. One that is panned by critics for being fanciful and lacking nuance. theguardian.com/politics/2022/…

I have never once “persuaded” a defendant on their plea. I can advise, but a decision on plea is for them. And no barrister or solicitor does any different. A right to trial is fundamental. Let’s fix the backlog rather than blame defendants. @kirkkorner @TheCriminalBar

I will respect the vote and show unity - because we may need to show unity next year when we may be forced to strike again. I hope the Govt works with us. I will show the required commitment, but that works both ways, and my ultimate commitment is to preserving justice for all

Regardless of the @TheCriminalBar ballot result, we have already achieved an immense victory in recent months. For the first time, we criminal barristers have established that we can and will pull together for an all-out strike. Many feared it couldn't be done. But we did it. 1/3

We will either continue to strike now, or do so again in the future if it becomes necessary. Remember this and we cannot lose. Our unity is our strength. 3/3

And we do so now without fear of reprisal or sanction. We do so in the knowledge that we can access funds to ease the financial burden of striking. This has been hard won. Whatever the result of the ballot, no one can take this from us unless we let them. 2/3