Thread by @Joanna__Hardy

A few days ago, David Lammy wrote a letter to the Justice Committee answering some questions about his proposals to restrict jury trial.

This is a welcome step.

It’s a telling letter.

But not for the reasons you might think.

🪡 🧵

First, David Lammy is clarifying the numbers.

Except. Um.

I’m confused by this paragraph. Is it half the people keeping jury trial? Or is it three quarters? And why do those two different figures appear in the same paragraph?

Does anyone know? Does David Lammy know?

Second. David Lammy is reassuring us.

You’ll still get a jury trial for murder and manslaughter and rape and rioting …

Wait.

What?

Did he say… Rioting?

This is a tell. It’s a giveaway. No one who has spent more than a few hours in a Crown Court in the last ten years would give the example of riot.

You could be wearing your I PREDICT A RIOT jumper at the RIOT CONVENTION and you’d probably still get charged with Violent Disorder.

I jest. You’d be charged with affray. (One for the lawyers).

But I’ve gone 15 years in court without once seeing a riot properly charged, let alone run to trial. I bet there are some who have gone longer.

It’s a running joke.

It’s a tiny show of inexperience. Of unfamiliarity.

Third, David Lammy is telling us how the courts will decide who are the lucky ones who get a jury trial and who are the, um, other people.

He sets it out:

That sounds…. familiar.

Let’s call not call a spade a stick. This is a mini sentencing hearing - but without the sentence.

In the middle of a busy court list. For thousands of cases a year.

Sounds, um, long?

Mr Lammy is silent on how long that will all take.

Please know that these will be fought. Hard. Lawyers will draft documents on why this case should get a jury. There will be analysis of guidelines and evidence and what can and can’t be accepted.

What happens if the judge needs more information? Does it take even more time?

Fourth. And I’ve had to read this ten times and send it to everyone I know because I can’t believe it.

Mr Lammy tells us when this big decision will be made:

I hate to break inconvenient news, but for either-way offences a PTPH is the *second* time a person has the ‘opportunity’ to enter a plea.

Not the first.

Which is it?

The first chance? Or PTPH?

These things occur in different places before different courts at different times.

They do know this stuff right?

Right?

And if it is PTPH - is the case going through a Mode of Trial determination twice in 4 weeks?

First in the Magistrates’ Court to determine if Summary or Jury/Bench trial and then again(?) to determine Jury v Bench?

Forgive me. It’s just. I thought we were trying to save time?

But fifth - there’s no time to dwell on these things - the sentencing powers have been clarified.

It seems once a Judge has told you the case is worth less than three years and you are denied a jury trial - they can then give you more than three years anyway.

Happy Christmas!

Imagine if it happens to be the same Judge!

Sorry fella - no jury trial for you because this is only worth 18 months but now I’ve heard the evidence it’s worth 4 years and if I’d known that before you’d have got a jury trial.

Absolutely scenes.

Justice, truly, at work.

Mr Lammy thinks this won’t happen often but here’s the key: Mr Lammy hasn’t conducted a PTPH recently.

But I have.

And let me tell you the state of the case papers at PTPH: they are scant. You’re riffing off a case summary and some basics, an out of date criminal record and no injury / loss update.

The judge almost always needs more to determine the nuance of a sentence. It’s laughable.

Sixth. The judges are going to give reasons for convictions & for acquittals.

Mr Lammy is silent on when they might do this. Because - at the moment - they start the next trial while the jury deliberate.

But under this model they’ll be sat there typing.

For.. hours? Overnight?

But, let’s not dawdle on such matters, we must trot on. Seventh, Mr Lammy is onto offences and sentences now.

Maybe we will have some more luck here.

He says we don’t have minimum sentences in law.

Um.

What?

Yes we do.

What is going on here? This is the actual Lord Chancellor.

We have minimum sentences for possessing firearms. Minimum sentences for blades, dealing drugs and burglaries after a certain number of convictions.

Why is this error in this document? Who is responsible for the error?

I want to pause there to lie down and do my breathing exercises but ON WE MARCH into the abyss.

Eighth. Mr Lammy refers to some modelling. Hold onto your hats!

Where is it? Can he publish it?

You see. I’m confused about the modelling. You obviously need to talk to the judiciary about sitting days & all of that. I understand.

But why can’t you publish the modelling for *your* own proposals?

There was modelling done pre-announcement, right?

Right?

I don’t mean you had a little look at Canada and thought it looked merry and bright. I mean. You already modelled it. Right?

Could we read it? Could the backbench MPs read it?

Like, now?

Ninth. Nearly there. I can only apologise I didn’t write this thing.

Mr Lammy mentions rape trials. He acknowledges that they are already prioritised.

That being so - I assume we can put to bed the idea that rape trials are being put in a queue behind people who steal whiskey.

What a set of proposals. What a letter.

What a time to be alive.

Don’t come here to insult people. Please. We engage fairly in this happy little corner of the internet.

If you’re concerned or worried about these proposals then write to your MP. Please.

This is still a democracy. This was not in their manifesto.

And you can help to stop it.