Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick MP has criticised the Labour Government’s plans to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases. He claimed that the move shows Labour is more interested in defending the rights of immigrants over British citizens.

Courts minister Sarah Sackman revealed the controversial plans, regarded as some of the most radical overhauls of the justice system in England and Wales for decades, could start as soon as next month. The proposition, spearheaded by former judge Sir Brian Leveson in July, is intended to significantly cut down the 77,000 strong backlog in UK courts by 2029. However, on Leveson’s recommendations, it could let sexual assault and child abduction cases be heard in court without a jury, The Guardian said.

Mr Jenrick told The Express: “Labour won’t leave the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] to protect the rights of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, but they’re willing to take away the right to a jury for thousands of British citizens.”

In a fuming six-word comment, he added: “They are not on your side.”

In October, Kemi Badenoch announced Conservative Party would leave the ECHR if they won the next election amid disputes that it blocks migration reform.

Ms Sackman explained Labour’s position, claiming that drug dealers were “coming into court and laughing in the face of the justices”.

She said these criminals knew that choosing trial by jury could mean their case could not be heard for years and that “they can go back out on the streets and commit further offences.”

She told The Guardian: “Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury? Do we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?

“For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard.”

What could these changes mean?

Historically, only defendants facing minor charges in a magistrates’ court were denied a right to a jury trial, which has long been synonymous in England and Wales with the right to a fair trial.

In his 378-page July report, Leveson outlined several ideas which he claimed would save up to 9,000 days of court sitting time. Some key ideas were:

• A new crown court division in which a judge and two magistrates hear either way offences (those which can be heard by a magistrate or a jury in crown court) rather than a jury.
• Removal of the right to be tried in a crown court for offences that carry a maximum sentence two years or less.
• Reclassifying some offences either way so they can only be tried in a magistrates’ court.
• Trial by a judge alone without a jury for serious and complex fraud cases.
• The right for all crown court defendants to choose to be tried by a judge alone.

A Ministry of Justice source told The Sun: “No final decision has been taken by the government. But bold action to bring down the backlog and get victims the swift and certain justice they deserve is vital.”

Meanwhile, the Criminal Bar Association, which represents barristers in Enland and Wales said the move was the “wrong decison”. They did admit that the court backlogs were “scandalous, but the solution is not an un-costed, un-tested replacement for trial by jury. Study after study shows that trial by jury is the system which carries the greatest confidence of the public.”