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

Mr Robertson told The Times that any potential cases against Mr Mountbatten-Windsor or Mr Mandelson "would allege abuse of public office" and "would be strongly contested and undoubtedly long and probably complex as well".

Under the Courts and Tribunals Bill, judges would have discretion to determine whether complex or lengthy cases should proceed without a jury, except in murder and rape trials.

Both Mr Mountbatten-Windsor and Mr Mandelson were arrested earlier this year on suspicion of misconduct in public office relating to their connections with Epstein, the American financier who pleaded guilty to child sex offences in 2005 before taking his own life in prison in 2019 whilst awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Both men have denied any wrongdoing in relation to their associations with Epstein.

Mr Robertson's more than 9,000-word analysis, published on the Bar Council's website on Monday evening to coincide with the committee stage of the legislation, highlighted provisions that would create "a presumption" to try complicated cases without juries.

The barrister, who once hired Mr Starmer fresh from university, argued that MPs supporting the bill "will be on the wrong side of their party's own history".

He branded the reforms "a cure worse than the disease" in tackling the Crown Court backlog of approximately 80,000 cases. Mr Robertson contended that the proposed changes would paradoxically worsen court delays rather than alleviate them.

Additional hearings would be required to establish which cases qualified for jury trial, including assessments of likely sentences, while judges presiding over non-jury cases would need to produce detailed written reasonings that are not currently necessary.

"From this draft legislation it can be seen how this ill-conceived plan to demolish jury trial may in fact cause more delays than it could ever serve to reduce," he wrote.

The barrister pointed to emerging evidence undermining the Government's rationale, noting that the Criminal Bar Association had found that simply lifting the cap on judicial sitting days in Crown Courts had already reduced backlogs in key regions, including London.

Despite this, Mr Robertson observed that parliamentary debate continued, driven in some cases by what he termed "ideological opposition to jury trial" among certain Labour MPs.

Mr Robertson condemned the retrospective application of the legislation as a fundamental injustice, arguing it undermined legal certainty and the established principle that defendants should face trial under rules existing at the time of their alleged offence.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill would apply to cases already within the backlog, meaning defendants currently entitled to a jury trial could instead find themselves before a judge sitting alone.

Mr Robertson warned the Government faced potential constitutional challenges to the legislation, as well as legal action from defendants who had been promised jury trials but would retrospectively lose that right.

He described the decision to prohibit appeals against rulings that complex or lengthy trials should proceed without a jury as "a disgrace".

The barrister also cautioned that Labour would face electoral consequences, suggesting voters whose support for jury trial was strong "may be demonstrated at the ballot box".

The Ministry of Justice defended the proposals, with a source stating that years of Conservative inaction had created a system "no longer fit for purpose, where justice delayed has become justice denied".