Robert Jenrick issues dire free speech warning over David Lammy’s jury trials revamp: ‘Completely shameful!’

Earlier today, it was announced that jury trials in England and Wales for crimes likely to have a sentence of less than three years will be axed.

The move was brought to address delays in the courts, which has seen an unprecedented number of individuals who are awaiting trial.

More serious offences, including murder and rape, will still be heard by a jury under the proposed changes.

Speaking on GB News, the Tory took aim at Mr Lammy's U-turn on jury trials, citing how the Justice Secretary previously lauded the system and claimed that they were fundamental to democracy.

Sir Keir Starmer has also defended jury trials in the past, previously declaring every criminal trial should have the chance to be heard by a jury.

"They were both correct. This is part of our rights. This goes back at least to Magna Carta. It's an important safety valve against an occasionally overbearing state, and now the Government decides to cast aside and scrap it," Mr Jenrick said.

"We all appreciate that there is a backlog in the courts," Mr Jenrick prefaced, with the backlog currently erring towards 8,000 awaiting trial.

"It's completely shameful that a serious case might not be heard for four or five years, but you don't resolve that administrative failure by the system by scrapping something that is the absolute heart of our criminal justice system."

In a new report, the Free Speech Union revealed the difference between chances of acquittal in trials concerning free speech, comparing trial by jury versus by magistrates.

Analysing Ministry of Justice data from 2017 to 2025, the acquittal rate in jury trials was found to be 27.6 per cent, compared to 15.9 per cent in magistrates courts.

They noted that, in the last three years, the difference is even larger, with juries more than twice as likely to acquit those charged with speech crimes.

Some 32.1 per cent of crown court cases ending in acquittal compared to 14.1 per cent in magistrates courts.

Citing the report, Martin Daubney asked Mr Jenrick: "Are you concerned about the impacts on free speech cases?"

"I am," Mr Jenrick responded. "At the heart of a jury trial is the fact that 12 ordinary citizens come together.

"They pull their collective experience of the world and they apply their common sense. And sometimes that means that they have the opportunity to acquit somebody for something that might be reprehensible, might be wrong, none of us would condone.

"This doesn't mean that someone should be in jail. The Lucy Connolly example is is right.

"Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. Had she, however, gone before a jury, one can only question - would she actually have been found guilty and ultimately imprisoned for 31 months? I suspect not."

Mr Jenrick's damning indictment on the People's Channel has followed a ferocious performance in the House of Commons, with the Shadow Justice Secretary bestowing a new nickname on the Deputy Prime Minister: "Lammy Dodger".

"Does this Government have no shame?" he spat across the despatch box, in a scathing attack on the Justice Secretary.

Mr Jenrick said: "His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself.

"In 2020 he said, ‘Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair’ In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found juries, and I quote, ‘act as a filter for prejudice’.

"But now he’s become Justice Secretary, he’s scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it?"

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter