Labor MPs are hoping to hijack plans to cut jury trials in England and Wales by proposing specialist courts with fixed trial dates for sexual offences.
Those behind the amendment want to block a sweeping plan to stop thousands of cases potentially being eligible for jury trials – a measure ministers say is needed to cut court backlogs – and say specialist courts alone could still solve much of the problem.
When the Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to the Commons for its committee and report stages after Easter, when amendments are considered and, in some cases, voted on, the government is bracing for a possible rebellion.
Supporters of the new amendments said they believed 90 or more Labor MPs could either vote against the government or abstain if their demands were not met.
In a coordinated campaign between different factions of backbenchers, the First Amendment would dismantle the central purpose of the bill: to eliminate the right of defendants in “anyhow” cases where they can opt for a magistrate or jury trial to choose the latter.
Although judges can hand out heavier sentences than magistrates, ministers say more people are opting for jury trials in the hope that waiting longer for a case to be heard could lead to charges being dismissed because victims and witnesses have given up.
The second amendment, introduced by Charlotte Nicholls and Stella Creasy, would create specialist courts for cases involving sexual offenses or domestic abuse, with deadlines for preparing cases and a fixed hearing date.
Although sexual offenses such as rape will still be tried by jury after the bill is passed, ministers have consistently argued that a main reason for the proposed changes is to speed up the progression of sexual cases through the Crown courts.
However, Nicholls has argued that sexual crimes are being “weaponised” by the government in order to enforce the bill. Last month, Warrington North M.P. told the commons How she opposed the bill despite waiting for over 1,000 days for the trial, in which the man accused of raping her was acquitted.
Nicholls argues that as Labor promised in its manifesto to “expeditely deal with rape cases” with specialist courts in every Crown Court in England and Wales, an amendment to his name would be the right way to tackle the backlog.
Nicholls said, “For me, specialist rape courts would obviate the need for the change to jury trials.” “But this would be such a significant victory for victims that if the comprehensive bill had still passed, we would have done so much that I could sleep at night.”
Some of the rebels behind the amendments have held talks with Justice Secretary David Lammy and Courts Minister Sarah Sackman, who are understood to have not entirely rejected some movement by the government.
Nicholls said that if there had been no movement, he and a large number of Labor MPs could have defeated the government, as the Labor Party had 10 votes in opposition and 90 abstentions at the second reading of the bill in March.
“If ministers show no willingness to address people’s concerns, you could have many of the people who abstained at the second reading as a show of good faith no longer voting for it, and some who voted for it deciding to abstain. The ball is now squarely in the government’s court.”
A government official said ministers would remain in contact with MPs, but added: “The case remains that we need to make these necessary changes to the jury trial limits to reduce the backlog of cases.”
