Labour MP Karl Turner has repeatedly raised alarm bells warning that the government’s proposed reforms to jury trials will hurt ordinary people.
Leading a group of up to 80 Labour MPs opposing the reforms, Turner persuaded them to abstain from the vote, securing a good faith agreement with ministers that they would allow a rebel MP to sit on the scrutiny committee.
However, unsurprisingly, the government has apparently reneged on this agreement made in good faith, with chief whip, Jonathan Reynolds, rejecting the two MPs proposed by Turner: Rachael Maskell and Stella Creasy.
According to the Telegraph, Turner said:
A very large number are now saying that we should not have abstained because we cannot trust the Government to act in good faith.
As usual, Labour denies that Turner secured any deal to influence who gets a seat at the table. Instead, ministers appointed Yasmin Qureshi who is referred to in the Telegraph as a “known and vocal critic” of the jury reforms.
A Labour source is cited as saying:
Karl getting to decide individual members of the bill committee was not part of any conversations he has had with government ministers or the whips.
It is not in any way fair to say this is a bad faith decision. We selected [Ms Qureshi] in good faith.
Nevertheless, Karl Turner will continue to oppose this dreadful reform.
Jury trials could be scrapped for crimes likely to attract a shorter prison sentence
Ministers have been accused of reneging on an offer to Labour MPs who are opposed to a reduction in the number of jury trials @DavidLammy @KarlTurnerMP @sarahsackman @TheCriminalBar @JamesDRossiter @thebarcouncil @RachaelMaskell @stellacreasy @TheLawSociety @DannyShawNews…
— Charles Hymas (@charleshymas) March 22, 2026
‘Dishonest’
Justice secretary, David Lammy, is working to restrict the human rights of defendants in criminal cases which would typically receive less than three years in prison. This has been widely condemned by lawyers, with some even calling for Lammy’s resignation. The condemnation followed Lammy’s appalling comparison of a three-year prison sentence to seeing a consultant for a “scraped knee”.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enshrines the right to a fair trial, including the right to a jury, to protect citizens from potential state oppression and to uphold justice. Yet David Lammy now asks us to accept that scrapping jury trials will somehow deliver swifter justice.
A claim which is disputed as “deception”, as barrister, Michael Mansfield, highlighted to Sky News.
This is the very reason I have described the governments line from the very outset as “dishonest”. Mike Mansfield describes it as a “deception”. https://t.co/w0cQNx7eyw
— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) March 23, 2026
Nevertheless, the dishonesty doesn’t end there. Adding insult to injury, this refusal to allow a proposed ‘rebel MP’ on to the committee follows the government’s egregious move to restrict access to legal advice for concerned MPs from Socialist Lawyers for Labour (SLL).
Karl Turner also led the charge then and said:
The policy position of the SLL is that these measures are a terrible mistake, are unworkable and must be stopped, but they have been blocked from sharing that position with Labour MPs in a briefing of the sort which one would expect it to be able to make.
The Canary reported on the devastating impact this will have on the perception of justice if these reforms go ahead, particularly for the rights of women and girls who are failed by the justice system.
Labour MP, Charlotte Nichols, had also shared her own traumatic experience as a survivor of rape. This principled intervention came in order to counter the cynical attempts by the government to use the very real pain of rape survivors to trample over the legal rights and freedoms of defendants.
When Nichols spoke up in the House of Commons against the bullying tactics used against her and other women, she incredulously said:
If we have concerns about this bill, it is because we have not been raped or because we don’t care enough for rape victims.
‘Scrutiny isn’t a luxury’
Speaking on jury trial reforms, Liverpool Riverside MP, Kim Johnson, told the Canary the strength of opposition is “palpable”.
She said:
The fact that Lammy has not included any critical voices from his own benches is very revealing. The strength of opposition to the jury proposals is palpable.
Blocking critical voices confirms the government is not confident in its own arguments, and instead of negotiating with the large numbers of concerned MPs, they are choosing to sideline us. Instead of trying to find solutions, this will only deepen existing concerns that our voices are not being listened to.
Scrutiny isn’t a luxury – it’s the foundation of democratic law-making.
If we are serious about justice, then we must be serious about scrutiny and that means listening to, not side-lining, those raising concerns about the proposed changes to our jury system.
Johnson is absolutely bang on; scrutiny only scares those who have something to hide. If the Starmer government genuinely believed this policy benefited the country and its citizens, they wouldn’t be so eager to avoid scrutiny.
Criticism is not a threat, it is essential. After all, it exposes blind spots and strengthens decision-making, forming a cornerstone of any healthy democracy.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.