David Lammy was brutalised by Labour MPs for a 'Putin-esque' assault on liberties today as he sounded the death knell for trial by jury.
In an astonishing Commons humiliation, the Justice Secretary was assailed from all sides as he declared that tens of thousands of defendants will be deprived of the 800-year-old right in a desperate bid to cut a massive backlog of cases.
A host of Mr Lammy's own backbenchers joined the mauling, with barely any voices in his favour - amid rising alarm in government over whether the measures can make it through Parliament. The bulk of the legal profession has also lined up against him.
Labour MPs were among those pointing out that Mr Lammy himself used to be fervently against the move. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick told the Commons that Keir Starmer previously opined that 'there should be a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases'.
Some demanded that at least the policy be made temporary until the backlog is cleared, something Mr Lammy rejected.
Under the plans, defendants will lose the right to choose a jury trial in a crown court if they are charged with 'either way' offences which, if they are convicted, carry short prison sentences.
Instead, cases will be overseen by a panel of newly empowered magistrates if there is a 'likely' sentence of up to two years in jail - or a sole judge in a new crown court bench division if they would face a three-year term.
Judges will also sit alone in complex fraud trials, which require specialist knowledge and expertise to unpick.
Only crimes carrying a punishment of more than three years will be put to a jury in a crown court.
It means that while rape cases will be heard by a jury, some offences including sexual assaults, stalking and sharing indecent images may not.
David Lammy faces a Labour revolt today as he confirmed Labour wants to rip out an 800-year tenet of the British legal system by ending trial by jury for all but the most serious crimes
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick told the Commons that Keir Starmer also previously opined that 'criminal trials without juries are a bad idea'
Labour MP Karl Turner said the proposals are a 'massive mistake' and will never get through Parliament
Mr Lammy pleaded for support from MPs, saying the plans were the only way to stop defendants 'gaming the system'.
'I'm clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences, those likely to receive a sentence over three years, and all indictable-only offences. Among others, this would include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill,' he said.
He added: 'We must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, it will take years to fix. The changes I'm proposing will require legislation, it will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect.
'But we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains.'
Mr Lammy said Sir Brian Leveson has been asked to do a second report on 'efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect'.
'We must future-proof our approach, technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception,' he said.
Diane Abbott - currently suspended from the Labour whip - was among the critics turning on Mr Lammy in the chamber.
'The entire House is concerned about victims including attacks on women and girls,' she said.
'But the entire House is also concerned about the many women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed.'
The independent MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington continued: 'I would quote from a lawyer, "the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual".'
'"The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance".
'That lawyer is our current Prime Minister - he wrote that in 1992 (in Socialist Lawyer magazine). It was true then as it is true today.'
Backbencher Clive Efford also voiced opposition, while Richard Burgon said the idea 'sent a chill through my heart', comparing it to something Vladimir Putin would put in place.
'Doesn't the justice secretary want to think again?' he said.
Stella Creasy said jury trials only accounted for 3 per cent of cases, asking how much difference curbing them would make. 'It's hard to see how this measure... will address that backlog,' she said.
Outside the Commons, Labour MP Karl Turner said the proposals are a 'massive mistake' and will never get through Parliament.
Baroness Helena Kennedy, a KC and Labour peer, said Mr Lammy's claim that rape victims are missing out on justice because of delays fuelled by jury trials is 'shameful'.
She told Times Radio that those calling for curbs on jury trials usually had a 'snooty view of the general public's ability to try a case'.
'I think that we should recognise that this would be the end of jury trial,' she said.
'Because once you start down this road of taking a side to the right to jury trial, it's going to be almost inevitable that it will end up being judge alone trials that will be advocated by those who don't like jury trial at all.'
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick accused Mr Lammy of 'scrapping the institution he once lauded'.
He told the Commons: 'Why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party's manifesto?
'In his twisted logic, he says he's scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt, if the Justice Secretary gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials.'
Mr Jenrick added that it had been 800 years since the Magna Carta and we have 'another unpopular leader who doesn't listen to his subjects'.
He said: 'Our ancestors did not stop bad King John only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.'
Mr Lammy responded that the changes were needed because the previous Tory government had cut court sitting days and magistrates already deal with the vast majority of UK trials.
He said: 'He knows too that the Conservatives took the juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases.
'So, of course, we reform to meet the needs of the system.'
Mr Lammy, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, claims he needs to upend the law to tackle a 'courts emergency' over a backlog of cases totalling more than 78,000.
This morning he accused criminals of playing the system to avoid pleading guilty for as long as possible and said those who 'steal an iPhone from Currys' should not be allowed to clog the system.
But he is facing a massive backlash from politicians and lawyers who argue that the change takes away a fundamental right and will do little to help ease pressure on the system.
He is also facing questions about Labour's competence after confirming 12 more prisoners have been wrongly released from prison in the past month.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick accused Mr Lammy of abandoning his principles in Government, having previously defended juries when he was in opposition.
'This year alone 21,000 court sitting days have been missed and the court backlog is up 10 per cent on their watch,' he said.
'Instead of depriving British citizens of ancient liberties, David Lammy should get his own department in order.'
It follows warnings from a senior barrister that judges could be at risk of intimidation by criminal gangs if the majority of trials are abolished.
And according to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) nearly half of the cases in the backlog are over violent and sexual offences, and only about 3 per cent of criminal cases are currently heard with a judge and a jury.
In a Commons statement Mr Lammy set out the Government's response to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in July to reform the courts system.
These include diverting more offences to magistrates' courts or to a new intermediate court where a judge would hear cases with two lay magistrates.
The former senior judge had called for juries to be reserved to hear the most serious cases, of 'indictable-only' such as murder, rape and manslaughter, and lesser 'either way' offences when a judge deems it appropriate.
He also called for judge-only trials to be used in serious and complex fraud cases, or other complex cases determined by a judge.
In an interview with The Times, Mr Lammy insisted he was not preparing to announce the 'scrapping' of jury trials.
But he suggested he would back Sir Brian's proposals to limit them to indictable-only offences, arguing that many defendants were 'playing the system' by delaying guilty pleas in either-way cases to the last minute.
He said: 'This is about saving the jury system.'
Yesterday Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association - which represents criminal barristers - expressed fears the overhaul could leave judges more vulnerable.
Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, accused the Government of not trusting 'ordinary people' with law
'It's easier to intimidate one person than it is to intimidate 12,' she told the FT. 'It's easier to identify one person than it is to identify 12.'
Ms Karmy-Jones warned 'there could be risks' in cases where 'there's a lot at stake' for defendants.
She gave as one example fraud cases that 'may well have money behind them'.
A leaked memo sent to senior civil servants stated all criminal cases where there is a possible sentence of up to five years would be determined by a judge in future.
The only exceptions would be murder, rape, manslaughter or cases deemed to be in the 'public interest'.
The Government has insisted that 'no final decision has been taken' on the reforms - which have been mooted as a way to clear a record court backlog of nearly 80,000 cases.
The Justice Secretary is expected to set out plans to increase control for judges on how to handle cases, and create faster routes for lower-level cases like in Canada, which has judge-only trials and where courts minister Sarah Sackman KC visited last month.
Proposals to curb jury trials have faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals, including from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council, which argued 'there is no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury - from both a principle and practical position'.
Reports of Mr Lammy considering restricting jury trials further than Sir Brian's recommendations have also faced backlash as an 'extreme measure' by the Law Society of England and Wales, which has not seen any 'real evidence' it will work to reduce the backlog.
As part of the announcement, £550million will also be given to victim support services over the next three years to help survivors and witnesses through the justice process, such as through counselling and advice on attending court.
The late victims' commissioner Baroness Helen Newlove had repeatedly raised concerns over victims' services, and said in October that 'support can be the difference between a victim staying engaged or walking away from the justice process'.
An annual survey of victims by the watchdog found less than half of respondents were confident the criminal justice system is effective or that they could get justice by reporting a crime.
Incoming victims' commissioner Claire Waxman, who will take up the role in the new year, welcomed the MoJ funding as a 'necessary step', but added: 'The sums pledged are not a silver bullet for the wider crisis facing the sector.'
'Ultimately, these services are crucial to a victim's recovery - and they will be just as essential to the recovery of the justice system as a whole,' she said.
Former Law Society president Richard Atkinson said the extra funding was welcome but 'only papers over the cracks and doesn't address the fundamental problems'.
Elsewhere, Mr Lammy has committed to more sitting days in the crown court on top of a record number to help clear the backlog and a match-fund scheme to support more young people to begin their careers as criminal barristers.
