David Lammy as Justice Secretary: what should we expect?

David Lammy is somewhat used to, one imagines, being a ‘first’ at things. After being called to the Bar in 1994 by Lincoln’s Inn, Lammy was the first black Briton to study at Harvard Law School, after which time he maintained legal practices in both the USA and the UK.

In March of this year, he was the first member of the UK government to state, in the House of Commons, that Israel was in breach of international law by blockading humanitarian supplies to Gaza (though he did later clarify, following a prompt from the Prime Minister’s spokesperson, that he meant only to say that Israel was “at risk” of being in breach).

And to that list he now gets to add the first black Briton to be Secretary of State for Justice. While his predecessor, Shabana Mahmood, still pipped him as the first person of colour overall to hold the position, it is nevertheless a milestone.

Indeed, it is a brief he has spent some time preparing for. As Shadow Justice Secretary, Lammy spent a number of years engaging with legal stakeholders and making the case for a more equal and effective justice system.

It would be overstating the case to call Lammy a ‘pioneer’ on the basis of that impressive resume. Certainly he has not always found himself on the more progressive side of social issues: in the aftermath of the riots that followed the killing of Mark Duggan in August 2011, Lammy took the opportunity in one interview with LBC Radio to blame the tightening of laws around smacking and the consequent inability of parents to appropriately discipline their children, as one of the reasons for the violence. It is, it must be said, a view that is not evidentially well-supported.

Still, Lammy has done commendable work in leading discussions about inequality and systemic racism in the justice system as part of the Lammy Review, published in 2017. Its findings of troubling disparities in arrests, court treatment and sentencing for people of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds remain of keen contemporary relevance.

At a time when the recommendations of the latest Leveson Review include some controversial proposals to remove the right to trial by jury from a number of criminal offences, some objections from within and outside the legal profession have drawn on the Lammy Review’s findings to sound their own warnings about the negative outcomes this might have for BAME individuals navigating the criminal justice system. 

No doubt some feathers would be ruffled to consider it – in some quarters of British society it remains the case that even acknowledging the existence of systemic injustice remains controversial. But such issues do not disappear for being ignored and those making the case for retaining trial by jury will have an effective weapon in the Review’s findings.

Many lawyers might feel it will be positive to have someone with Lammy’s pedigree making their case to the government, given just how badly the system is in need of reform and how well-acquainted he should be with its many complexities.

Indeed, with both him and the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer (a former DPP and barrister), a lawyer might reasonably hope that two of the most senior figures on the Front Bench have firsthand experience of the criminal justice system and its functions. Surely, only good can come of this?

This is provided, of course, that Lammy is willing to do the work of actually listening to those who must work to keep the system together and then acting seriously on their recommendations.

Recent form gives some cause for trepidation. It would be discouraging to have a repeat of Shabana Mahmood’s standoff with the Sentencing Council marked by political mudslinging over a ‘two-tier’ justice system — particularly given that the Lammy Review had already shown these problems were embedded in the system. 

If Lammy can set aside political convenience and press for reform with conviction, it would be to his credit and the justice system would stand to gain.