Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Mandelson could face trial without a jury if they are prosecuted over their links to Jeffrey Epstein, one of Britain's most eminent human rights barristers has reportedly warned.
The Express understands Geoffrey Robertson KC, a former joint head of Doughty Street Chambers who worked alongside Sir Keir Starmer, said the government's proposed court reforms would create "a presumption" in favour of judge-only trials for complicated cases — and that any proceedings against the two men would almost certainly fall into that category.
Writing in a report published for the Bar Council, Robertson described the plans as "a betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand" — a particularly pointed attack given his status as a leading figure among the lefty lawyers with whom both Starmer and Justice Secretary David Lammy were once associated.
Both Mountbatten-Windsor, the King's brother, and Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, were arrested earlier this year on suspicion of misconduct in public office in connection with their relationships with Epstein. The American financier admitted child sex offences in 2005 before taking his own life in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on separate sex trafficking charges. Both men deny any wrongdoing.
Lammy has argued that cutting the number of jury trials is necessary to clear the chronic backlog in the crown courts. Under the proposed legislation, a judge would be able to decide in "complex or lengthy cases" — excluding murder and rape — whether a jury is needed at all.
Robertson told The Times that any prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor or Mandelson for misconduct in public office "would allege abuse of public office" and "would be strongly contested and undoubtedly long and probably complex as well" — precisely the criteria that could trigger a judge-only hearing.
He called the government's decision to bar appeals against such rulings a "disgrace."
Robertson also 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 found that simply lifting the cap on the number of judicial sitting days had already reduced backlogs across key regions including 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 said.
In his Bar Council analysis, Robertson also argued that ministers had underestimated the constitutional significance of the jury system — specifically its capacity for mercy, describing it as "a quality built-in through the power of a jury to acquit when the defendant deserves mercy."
The Justice Secretary defended the reforms, framing the choice as binary.
Lammy said the alternative to the 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."
