Andrew ‘prone to be denied a jury trial’ below Labour reforms | UK | News | EUROtoday

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Mandelson may face trial with out a jury if they’re prosecuted over their hyperlinks to Jeffrey Epstein, considered one of Britain’s most outstanding human rights barristers has reportedly warned.

The Express understands Geoffrey Robertson KC, a former joint head of Doughty Street Chambers who labored alongside Sir Keir Starmer, stated the federal government’s proposed court docket reforms would create “a presumption” in favour of judge-only trials for sophisticated instances — and that any proceedings towards the 2 males would virtually actually fall into that class.

Writing in a report printed for the Bar Council, Robertson described the plans as “a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand” — a very pointed assault given his standing as a number one determine among the many lefty attorneys with whom each Starmer and Justice Secretary David Lammy have been as soon as related.

Both Mountbatten-Windsor, the King’s brother, and Mandelson, the previous British ambassador to the United States, have been arrested earlier this 12 months on suspicion of misconduct in public workplace in reference to their relationships with Epstein. The American financier admitted little one intercourse offences in 2005 earlier than taking his personal life in jail in 2019 whereas awaiting trial on separate intercourse trafficking costs. Both males deny any wrongdoing.

Jury trial reforms

Lammy has argued that slicing the variety of jury trials is critical to clear the power backlog within the crown courts. Under the proposed laws, a choose would have the ability to determine in “complex or lengthy cases” — excluding homicide and rape — whether or not a jury is required in any respect.

Robertson instructed The Times that any prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor or Mandelson for misconduct in public workplace “would allege abuse of public office” and “would be strongly contested and undoubtedly long and probably complex as well” — exactly the standards that would set off a judge-only listening to.

He known as the federal government’s resolution to bar appeals towards such rulings a “disgrace.”

Robertson additionally challenged the central justification for the reforms, arguing that “evidence is now emerging to show that the plans to restrict jury trials will have no significant effect on reducing trial delays.” Last week The Times reported that the Criminal Bar Association discovered that merely lifting the cap on the variety of judicial sitting days had already diminished backlogs throughout key areas together with London.

“This is bizarre, given the historical role of the jury in protecting dissidents and sustaining democracy: attacking juries must be regarded as a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand,” Robertson stated.

In his Bar Council evaluation, Robertson additionally argued that ministers had underestimated the constitutional significance of the jury system — particularly its capability for mercy, describing it as “a quality built-in through the power of a jury to acquit when the defendant deserves mercy.”

Lammy responds

The Justice Secretary defended the reforms, framing the selection as binary.

Lammy stated the choice to the federal government’s proposals was “the Tory status quo — continued drift, collapsed trials, and victims walking away from the system entirely. This Labour government chooses a system that works for victims, providing brave survivors with the 21st century justice they deserve.”