Keir Starmer's mentor accuses PM of 'betrayal' over controversial plans to axe jury trials

Alice Tomlinson
Mon, 13 Apr 2026 20:12:05 +0000

Sir Keir Starmer’s mentor has accused him of a “betrayal” over Labour's controversial plans to axe jury trials.

Geoffrey Robertson KC, the prominent human rights barrister who founded the chambers where Sir Keir practiced law for nearly two decades, has come out as one of the most high-profile critics of the Government's proposed justice reforms.

Mr Robertson warned removing jury trials would endanger the "whole edifice" of British criminal justice.

He further said Labour MPs who voted in favour would find themselves on the wrong side of their own party's history, the Telegraph reports.

TRENDING

Stories

Videos

Your Say

Mr Robertson founded Doughty Street Chambers, in which the Prime Minister was a member of from 1990 to 2008.

The proposals, spearheaded by Justice Secretary David Lammy, who also practised at the same chambers, defendants facing sentences of up to three years in prison would lose their right to be tried by a jury of their peers.

Mr Robertson said: "Given its record of support for progressive causes, for free speech and peaceful political protests, the Bill does seem a betrayal of Labour traditions and values."

He described the legislative plan as both "ill-conceived" and "bizarre", arguing it would not speed up the justice system but could in fact create more delays.

His intervention comes as up to 60 Labour MPs have threatened to vote against the reforms unless the Government backs down or offers concessions.

The proposals already face opposition from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and senior figures in the House of Lords.

Mr Robertson argued out of all the institutions comprising the justice system, judges, magistrates, jurors and probation, the Government had chosen to dismantle "the only one that commands public respect”.

He warned juries provided two irreplaceable advantages no judge-only court could replicate: independence from the state and the power to extend mercy to defendants who deserved it.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Rachel Reeves's inheritance tax raids forcing major British firm abroad

Andrew and Peter Mandelson 'could be denied jury trials' under Keir Starmer proposal

Keir Starmer blasted by Chagos lawyer after swipe at 'self-appointed' Chagossian Government

That power to show mercy, he said, was an "important safeguard", particularly given offences carrying sentences of under three years were far from trivial and could permanently alter a defendant's life, for instance, disqualifying them from future employment and public office.

Mr Robertson said government ministers who dismissed jury trials for offences such as shoplifting fundamentally misunderstood how vital they were to innocent defendants charged with such crimes.

He pointed to the case of civil servant Clive Ponting, who was cleared by a jury over an official secrets leak relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War.

Under the new proposals, he would face a judge-only court.

Mr Robertson also noted should Lord Mandelson or Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor ever face prosecution, they too could lose their right to a jury trial under the new framework.

Juries, he argued, were a uniquely English institution dating back more than 800 years, serving as a fundamental safeguard against authoritarian government.

They reflect the common sense and shared values of ordinary citizens, he said, rather than the personal views of a judge or bench of magistrates.

He was also critical of magistrates as an alternative, pointing out fewer than three per cent were manual workers, none were unemployed and more than 40 per cent of guilty verdicts handed down by magistrates' courts were overturned on appeal.

Mr Robertson also took direct aim at Sir Brian Leveson, the Court of Appeal judge whose review recommended the jury curbs, accusing him of using "apocalyptic" language to justify the changes and failing to consider alternative solutions to the court backlog.

Those alternatives, Mr Robertson suggested, could include a taskforce of senior judges targeting the most delayed cases or legislation capping court delays at two years – approaches he argued would be far less damaging to the justice system.

He also warned the Government faced both a constitutional challenge to the legislation and potential legal action from defendants who had been promised jury trials and would now be retrospectively denied that right.

A Labour source defended the reforms, saying the criminal justice system inherited from the Conservatives was on the “brink of collapse”, with a backlog of more than 80,000 Crown Court cases.

The source said Sir Brian Leveson himself had been clear money and efficiency measures alone would not be sufficient and the Government's approach was designed to pull every available lever to bring the backlog under control before the end of the parliament.

Labour insisted the alternative was continued drift, collapsed trials and victims walking away from the system entirely.

GB News has reached out to No10 for response.