Lammy’s no-shows are called a refusal in show jumping

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Justice Secretary David Lammy faced criticism after delegating responsibility for defending his controversial proposal to reduce jury trials to his deputy, Sarah Sackman, who struggled to justify the reform amid parliamentary opposition. The plan, intended to improve efficiency in cases like rape allegations by having judges decide certain trials, has sparked widespread concern over the erosion of long-standing citizen involvement in the justice system.

Justice Secretary David Lammy faced renewed criticism in the House of Commons over his proposal to limit jury trials in certain criminal cases, but he once again avoided addressing the issue directly, delegating the responsibility to his deputy, Sarah Sackman. During a session addressing an urgent question on the future of jury trials, Sackman represented the department amid skepticism and opposition from MPs across the political spectrum.

Lammy's plan to curtail jury trials, which have been a cornerstone of the UK justice system for over 800 years, centers on having judges decide cases in specific circumstances. The Justice Secretary has justified the move partly by citing statistics related to rape cases, claiming that 60% of alleged victims withdraw from the justice process due to court delays. However, this figure was challenged by opponents, who stated the actual withdrawal rate after charges is closer to 9%.

During the Commons debate, Sackman appeared to struggle to defend the data and broader policy proposals. Opposition MPs contended that juries, composed of ordinary citizens, reduce the risk of personal bias and external pressure more effectively than decisions made solely by judges. Sir Julian Lewis (Con, New Forest East) highlighted the collective judgment of 12 jurors as more reliable than the decisions of individual legal professionals, while Paulette Hamilton (Lab, Erdington) emphasized the importance of citizen involvement in the justice system.

Highlighting the absence of clear evidence, Sir Desmond Swayne (Con, New Forest West) pressed Sackman to "show the workings" behind the proposed reforms, a challenge she was unable to meet. Instead, she repeatedly promised that Whitehall would release a risk assessment in due course, a response that drew laughter from MPs.

The debate also saw more measured contributions, including from Robert Jenrick (Con), who focused on scrutinizing the use of rape-case statistics by Lammy rather than resorting to inflammatory rhetoric. Meanwhile, Karl Turner (Lab, Hull East), a barrister critical of Lammy, was prevented by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle from asking a question after arriving late due to schedule changes.

The controversy echoes in the House of Lords, where Treasury minister Lord Livermore faced ridicule over pre-Budget leaks. Despite his reassurances of strict confidentiality, peers expressed disbelief and amusement, underscoring the growing parliamentary impatience with government officials’ handling of sensitive information.

Separately, former Labour leader Ed Miliband appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee amid discussions on climate issues, reportedly preparing for a potential leadership campaign. The session was marked by uncomfortable conditions due to overheating in the committee room.

The ongoing debate over jury trials highlights tensions within the UK government and parliament regarding the balance between judicial efficiency and the preservation of traditional legal safeguards. Critics remain unconvinced by the rushed approach to reforming such a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.