Lammy’s Controversial ‘No Jury’ Courts Bill Passes But How Did Havering’s MPs Vote?

Residents across Havering may be asking how their three Members of Parliament voted on the controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill legislation driven by Justice Secretary David Lammy that has sparked significant debate about the future of jury trials and the wider justice system in England and Wales.

When the bill was put to a vote in the House of Commons, the borough’s MPs were divided.

• Margaret Mullane, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, voted in favour of the bill.
• Andrew Rosindell, Reform MP for Romford, voted against the bill.
• Julia Lopez, Conservative MP for Hornchurch and Upminster, also voted against the bill, voting for the Tory Amendment.

This means that two of Havering’s MPs opposed the legislation, while one supported it, reflecting the wider political divide over the proposed reforms.

What The Courts and Tribunals Bill Proposes

The Courts and Tribunals Bill forms part of the Government’s attempt to tackle the large backlog of criminal cases currently facing the courts.

Supporters of the bill argue that changes are needed to help speed up the justice system and reduce delays that can leave victims waiting years for their cases to be heard.

Key proposals include:

• Allowing more cases to be heard by a judge without a jury in certain circumstances
• Increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from 12 months to 18 months
• Reforming the appeals process from magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court
• Creating a Bench Division of the Crown Court, where some cases could be heard by a judge sitting alone

The Government says these changes would allow courts to process cases faster and focus jury trials on the most serious offences.

The Conservative Amendment

During the debate, Conservative MPs tabled amendments raising concerns about the potential impact on the right to trial by jury.

Critics argue that jury trials are one of the cornerstones of the British legal system, ensuring that defendants are judged by members of the public rather than solely by the state.

Opposition figures warned that reducing the use of juries could weaken long-standing protections that have existed in British law for centuries.

A Bill That Has Not Been Viewed Favourably

Despite the Government’s claims that reform is necessary to deal with court delays, the bill has not been viewed favourably by many in the legal profession.

Thousands of lawyers, including senior barristers and former judges, have raised concerns about the potential erosion of the right to a jury trial.

Critics argue that the real problem lies in years of underfunding and staff shortages within the justice system, rather than the structure of jury trials themselves.

What Happens Next

The bill must still pass through several further stages in Parliament, including detailed scrutiny by MPs and debate in the House of Lords, before it can become law.

However, with strong criticism already emerging from lawyers, campaigners and some MPs, the legislation is likely to remain one of the most contentious justice reforms currently being debated in Westminster.

In response the Hornchurch and Upminster MP Julia Lopez told the Havering Daily:

‘With this legislation Keir Starmer and David Lammy are committing an act of constitutional vandalism, destroying the vital principle that nobody should be “seized or imprisoned” except “by the lawful judgment of his equals.” 

This principle that has stood for 811 years but, with no manifesto mandate, no consultation, and no credible assessment of its effects, Keir Starmer and David Lammy are trying to force through a new law that severely restricts jury trials. I voted against this – as did MPs from across the House including from the Labour Party itself.

Tackling the backlog in our court system does not require the upending of centuries of rights. Instead, Conservatives are calling on the Government to address this by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit.

Unfortunately, not enough Labour MPs joined with us and the vote passed. However, the fight continues.’

The Reform Member of Parliament for Romford Andrew Rosindell MP told the Havering Daily:

“There are only four clauses of the Magna Carta which are still enforceable to this day: that the Church of England remains free and its rights respected; the retention of the ancient liberties and customs of the City of London; and most significantly, the rights afforded to the individual that no free person shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, or stripped of rights except by lawful judgement of their peers. Yet the Government are trampling on that final principle. It has stood since 1215. It is the cornerstone of English liberty, and one of the greatest constitutional principles our nation has ever given to the wider world. That is why I voted against the Courts and Tribunals Bill alongside my colleagues in Reform UK and parliamentarians from across the opposition benches.

Ministers may treat this as a trivial matter, but it is anything but. This is a slippery slope. It sets a precedent that this ancient liberty – the right to trial by jury – can be chipped away whenever the Government decides it is inconvenient. Under a Reform UK government, if the courts must sit through the night to ensure that English men and women keep their ancient right to trial by jury, then so be it. We will protect that right while simultaneously tackling the court backlog. These reforms are dangerous, and I have urged colleagues across the House to stand with us in defending the liberties that have defined this country for more than eight centuries.”

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.