Labour rebel MPs' amendment defeated at Bill Committee

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

5 May 2026

As it limps on, the Government is pressing ahead with its legislative agenda — including its plan to curtail the right to trial by jury.

David Lammy, the Justice Secretary, is spearheading measures contained within the Courts and Tribunals Bill that would restrict the ancient right to trial by jury.

During the final day of scrutiny at the House of Commons Committee stage, the Government defeated an amendment tabled by Labour rebel MPs Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasy. The amendment would have honoured a core Labour manifesto commitment and was widely regarded as a crucial means of preserving the right to jury trial. Six members of the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee voted in favour of the amendment being read a second time; nine voted against.

The amendment would have required the establishment of specialist courts at every Crown Court to hear cases of rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse. Those cases would be heard by a specialist judge and a jury, with imposed limits on case preparation, fixed trial dates and prioritised listings where the accused is on bail. Crucially, the amendment would also have removed all Government clauses restricting the right to jury trial.

Charlotte Nichols made a significant intervention during the Committee stage when she spoke against the Government’s jury trial reforms, waiving her anonymity to reveal that she had herself been raped. She accused ministers of “weaponising” victims in an attempt to push through their proposals.

It bears emphasis that the establishment of such specialist courts was a Labour manifesto commitment, whereas restricting the right to jury trial was not — a point repeatedly pressed on the Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, by supporters of the amendment within the Committee.

The Minister sought to assure the Committee that the Government remains committed to fulfilling its manifesto pledge, but maintained that the amendment and such specialist courts were not an alternative to the Government’s wider proposals, and that establishing such courts does not require primary legislation. The obvious question that raises is: why has the Government not done so already?

The Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan, said: “if a government puts in its manifesto a particular element of direct relevance as it did in relation to specialist courts, you can see the public would have every right to be aggrieved that something else entirely different and very significantly different appeared as government policy instead of what was in their manifesto.”

Read more in The Law Society Gazette.