David Lammy using victims of rape as ‘cudgel’ to drive court reforms – Labour MP

A Labour MP has accused David Lammy of using victims as a “cudgel” to drive through reforms to the courts system, as she spoke of her own experience of being raped.

Charlotte Nichols, who has not previously spoken in the Commons about her experience, said she was raped at an event she attended as a member of Parliament.

She hit out at the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to curb access to jury trials as MPs debated the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which will see cases with a likely sentence of three years or less being heard by a single crown court judge if passed.

Mr Lammy, who is also the Lord Chancellor, had earlier told MPs they faced a “stark” choice, warning there is an urgent need to address rising court backlogs as he pleaded with them to support the Bill.

His comments came as a number of Labour MPs said they could not support the measures, including Karl Turner, a longstanding critic, who branded many of the changes “unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary”.

Ms Nichols, MP for Warrington North, told the Commons on Tuesday: “I waited 1,088 days to go to court.

“Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse from strangers about to this day.

“But here’s the kicker, in this debate, experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection, for what this Bill actually is.

“The violence against women and girls sector haven’t had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the Government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way I think is deeply damaging.

“We have been told that 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. The opposite is true in my case, it is because I have been raped that I am as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim focused.

“It is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out that I care what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime more widely.”

She added: “There is so much that we can be doing for rape victims that isn’t the Lord Chancellor using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that aren’t directly relevant to them.

“As a starting point, Rape Crisis England and Wales have called for five key demands in their Living in Limbo report. Don’t say that this Bill helps deliver justice for rape victims, until it actually, materially does.”

Ms Nichols accepted that juries do not make perfect decisions, but argued that neither do judges.

She also said the Bill does little for victims when they go to court, saying she still has “almost as many nightmares about my experience in the witness stand as I do about my rape”.

Ms Nichols said the man who raped her was acquitted in a criminal court.

She was given compensation after a civil case found she had been raped, she told MPs.

Natalie Fleet had earlier spoken in support of the Government, arguing it is “stepping up for victims”.

The Labour MP for Bolsover has previously spoken about her own experience of being groomed and raped.

She told the Commons: “I can tell you from personal experience, you know what’s worse than being raped? Facing years of waiting to see if people believe you.”

“This is not about denying anybody justice. This is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice,” she added.

Ms Fleet said she would do “everything I can to get as many rapists as I can in those courts”, adding: “Trials by jury are part of our history, but we have to adapt when trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000, we need to keep up too.”

Kingston-upon-Hull East MP Mr Turner, a former barrister, said he would abstain after speaking to Mr Lammy on Monday. He said he believed parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill would lead to it being changed.

He said: “I am more confident now than ever I was that the worst parts of this Bill will be defeated at amendment stage.”

He added: “Let this have a second reading today, and let us make progress to get rid of the bits of this Bill which are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.”

Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) said she did not believe magistrates’ courts had the capacity to take on the caseload from crown courts.

The Justice Secretary later told MPs that the proposals were “progressive” and that if no action was taken, the backlog could reach 200,000 cases in a decade.

His justice minister, Sarah Sackman, has previously said the Government would carry out the reforms regardless of any backlog, amid calls for a “sunset clause” once the backlog had fallen.

Speaking at second reading of the Bill, Mr Lammy said: “The choice before the House is stark. We cannot continue with this rising backlog.”

He added: “This Bill is not just about juries, this is a whole package and that’s why just a few weeks ago I set out that investment was key, and this is £2.78 billion worth of investment and as Sir Brian (Leveson) told us in part two of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system is also fundamental.

“Victims are currently worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free. Free to roam the streets, free to commit more crimes, free to create more victims.

“To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, investment is essential, modernisation is essential, and reform.”

The proposed changes follow recommendations from a review by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson published last year.

But a letter organised by the Bar Council and signed by hundreds of judges, barristers and lawyers said the plans were “based on little evidence”.

Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy claimed the Government is “rushing” proposed changes to jury trial through Parliament “at breakneck speed”.