David Lammy had furious row with rape claimant as his jury trial plans faced backlash

David Lammy had a furious row with a Labour MP and alleged rape victim over his plans to axe jury trials.

Charlotte Nichols said the Justice Secretary’s proposals will do “almost nothing” for victims of sexual violence, adding that women are being used as a “rhetorical device”.

And Ms Nichols told Mr Lammy his plans wouldn’t work.

But the Deputy Prime Minister sensationally responded: ‘Tell that to the rape victims waiting three years in court’.

A furious Ms Nichols then hit back: “I’ve been that rape victim. I know what that feels like.”

In a stinging attack on the Labour Government, she added: “How do you use rape victims as a rhetorical device for a Bill which does almost nothing for them?”

She said: “They (the Government) were trying to pitch it as criminals and legal professionals kicking off, and we are standing up for victims.

“They kept really hammering this line.

“On one occasion, I got into a row with David Lammy because I don’t think the proposals are workable.

“He said ‘tell that to the rape victims waiting three years in court’.

“I’ve been that rape victim. I know what that feels like.”

Ms Nichols spoke about details of the political drama during a fact-finding visit to Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London with Bar Council chairwoman Kirsty Brimelow KC, who is leading widespread opposition from the legal profession to the jury reform plans.

Ms Nichols said she grew increasingly annoyed as the Government “used” the experience of victims, particularly in rape and sexual violence cases, to try to push forward the Bill in private meetings with MPs and in social media posts.

She said her conversations with Mr Lammy, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, felt like her own experience being “used against me as a rhetorical tool”, and said this was the moment she decided: “This is the hill I’m going to die on and I’m leading the rebellion on it.”

She said: “If you say what we want is a better experience of the criminal justice system for victims, there’s a million other ways to do that which aren’t the proposals we have.

“How do you use rape victims as a rhetorical device for a Bill which does almost nothing for them?”

Justice chiefs have conceded it could take almost 10 years for the backlog to drop below 50,000.

They have also admitted it will be higher in 2029 than it is now.

The backlog of cases will rocket from almost 80,000 to more than 100,000 next year, and could hit 200,000 by 2035, according to modelling by the Ministry of Justice.

Justice sources have admitted some victims are being told their trials won’t be heard until 2030.

Some sexual assault, burglary, drug dealing and robbery cases will be heard by a single judge.

The Ministry of Justice will scrap the right of defendants to “elect” a jury trial for so-called “either way offences”.

Judges will assess a case, and if it is “likely” to result in a three-year prison sentence or less, it will be heard by either a magistrate or the new Crown Court Bench Division.

And they will apply to suspects already charged with crimes.

Magistrates will also be able to sentence criminals for up to 18 months, as part of Labour’s plan to reduce pressure on Crown Courts.

Devastating analysis confirmed tens of thousands of victims will continue to face lengthy waits to have their day in court.

Even if Labour were to introduce the first jury trials of 2028, they would still be relying on a range of other scenarios going in their favour.

Ms Nichols put forward an amendment at committee stage which would see the creation of specialist courts for sexual offences, with fixed dates for trial, being written into the Bill.

The Government rejected the amendment, which mirrors a proposal from Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto, but Ms Nichols plans to bring it back this week so that the whole House of Commons can debate and vote on it.

At Snaresbrook, the MP heard from a collection of barristers who oppose the jury reforms and say the Government should focus on other changes and improvements which would bring down the 80,000-strong backlog of cases.

A junior barrister, who is two years into her career, said she is contemplating quitting the profession if the Bill passes.

“Juries don’t create delays and the suggestion to get rid of them is a nonsense,” she said.

Ms Nichols and Ms Brimelow spent part of the morning in a “freezing cold” courtroom and witnessed first-hand the delays caused by problems getting interpreters for defendants, before hearing from lawyers who have experienced chronic delays due to defendants not being brought to court on time from prison, heating system failures and toilets overflowing.

Snaresbrook is one of the courts which is running so-called “blitz courts” to try to clear cases from the backlog instead of having them sitting for months or even years waiting for a trial.

The Bar Council says there is a growing bank of evidence that courts can cut the backlog and reduce delays with measures that do not involve taking an axe to the right to jury trial.

In Ms Nichols case, she made a complaint of rape in 2021 and the man she accused was cleared by a jury after a 2024 trial.

It took nine months for the case to come to trial after charges were brought, and the majority of the delays were from the police investigation and waiting for the Crown Prosecution Service to take decisions.

“The backlogs are intolerable and everyone wants swifter justice – legal professionals, defendants, everyone,” she said.

“But what they have identified as the issue and what are the things that actually drive the delays are two very different things.”

The Government’s proposals were brought after an independent review by retired Court of Appeal Judge Sir Brian Leveson.