Karl Turner: threatens by‑election if Starmer drops jury trial reform plan

In early January 2026, the United Kingdom’s political landscape was jolted by an extraordinary challenge from within the governing Labour Party. Karl Turner, MP for Kingston upon Hull East, publicly warned that he could resign his seat and force a by‑election if Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer persists with controversial plans to reform jury trials in England and Wales. This confrontation — rare among sitting MPs from the same party — has spotlighted deep tensions over civil liberties, justice reform, party discipline, and electoral politics.

Turner’s stance is notable not just for its ferocity, but because government proposals to restrict jury trials have become a major inflection point in British legal and political discourse. For a Labour MP to threaten such drastic action underscores the depth of opposition in his own ranks. Below, we unpack exactly what’s going on, why Turner’s opposition matters, and what it could mean for the government, the justice system, and British politics more broadly.

Who is Karl Turner?

Karl Turner is a Labour Member of Parliament representing Kingston upon Hull East, a constituency in northern England. A long‑serving MP, Turner was first elected in 2010 and has held his seat through multiple election cycles.

Before his political career, Turner practised as a barrister. His legal background — including personal experience with criminal proceedings — has shaped his perspective on justice issues. Notably, in 2002, Turner was wrongly charged with handling stolen goods while working as an antiques dealer, a case that ultimately collapsed before reaching a jury trial. That experience, he has said, informs his strong belief in juries as key safeguards in the justice system.

Turner’s career in parliament has generally been solidly loyal to party leadership — until now. His recent revolt marks the first time he has ever broken the Labour whip in his 15‑plus years as an MP.

The Proposed Jury Trial Reforms: What’s at Stake?

At the centre of the controversy is a set of proposed criminal justice reforms championed by the Labour government, spearheaded by Justice Secretary David Lammy. The reforms aim to remove the right to a jury trial in many lower‑level criminal cases, replacing them with judge‑only trials or expanded magistrates’ court powers.

Key Elements of the Government’s Justice Plan

• Jury trials would be removed for offences likely to carry a sentence of three years or less, shifting many criminal cases away from the Crown Court and into judge‑led proceedings.

• Right of appeal from a magistrates’ court to the Crown Court is to be restricted.

• A new system of judge‑only “Swift Courts” is proposed to speed up criminal justice processing.

• The government argues the plan would reduce the Crown Court backlog, which has climbed to historic highs, and help deliver faster justice for victims and defendants.

Supporters of the reforms stress that the Crown Court backlog — numbering tens of thousands of cases — threatens confidence in the system and slows justice for all. Justice Secretary Lammy has publicly defended the plan as essential to modernising the justice system and bringing down delays, citing models from countries like Canada where judge‑only cases are well established.

Turner’s Opposition: Principle, Personal Experience, and Politics

Karl Turner’s opposition has been vehement and multifaceted. He has described the proposed reforms as **“ludicrous,” “ideological,” and a threat to a fundamental common‑law right.”

1. A Personal and Professional Conviction

Much of Turner’s rhetoric invokes his own experience with the criminal justice system. He has reiterated that a jury — rather than a single judge — provided an essential safeguard when he faced prosecution. His argument is that jury trials stop prejudice and state overreach, particularly for ordinary citizens without power or privilege.

This view resonates with some legal scholars and critics of the reforms, who argue that jury involvement promotes community participation, fairness, and confidence in justice — protections that would weaken without juries.

2. A Rare Rebellion in the Labour Party

Turner became the only Labour MP to vote against the government in a recent Commons debate over the issue, siding instead with a Conservative motion opposing the plan — an unprecedented step in his parliamentary career.

In public and media comments, Turner has not held back:

• He told the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer that he “ought to be ashamed of himself” for pushing the reforms.

• He criticised Justice Secretary David Lammy, saying Lammy had “fallen for the civil servants’ trick” in pursuing the plan.

• He said he was “not fearful” of having the party whip removed if that was the consequence of standing by his principles.

Perhaps most dramatically, Turner has warned that — if Starmer does not reverse course — he would resign his seat and trigger a by‑election to let the voters decide whether the government should pursue these measures.

By‑Election Threat: Why It Matters

Threatening to force a by‑election is unusual in modern British politics. It essentially challenges the party leadership to either abandon the policy or face a potential electoral test of confidence.

Historical Context

The last time an MP deliberately triggered a by‑election on a point of principle was in 2008, when Conservative MP David Davis resigned his seat to fight a by‑election over civil liberties legislation. That event was widely seen as symbolic — a protest that aimed to spotlight rights issues above party loyalty.

Risky Strategy in a Marginal Seat

Turner represents Kingston upon Hull East, a seat he won in the 2024 general election with a majority of just 3,920 votes over Reform UK — a right‑wing populist challenger party that came second.

According to political modelling, a by‑election in this constituency could be highly competitive, with Reform UK poised as the main challenger and potentially likely to win.

This puts Turner’s threat in stark relief: he is willing to risk handing his seat to a populist rival to uphold what he sees as a constitutional principle. That’s a gamble with potential national implications — particularly if Labour loses ground in traditional heartlands in the North and Midlands.

Reactions Across the Political Spectrum

The Turner revolt has triggered wide commentary in political circles:

Within Labour

Many Labour MPs share Turner’s unease; roughly 40 backbenchers signed a letter urging Starmer to abandon the reforms, arguing the change would erode a fundamental right while doing little to address court delays effectively.

However, Starmer and top ministers have insisted the plan is necessary and remain committed to it, framing the reforms as practical rather than ideological.

From the Opposition

Conservatives and other opposition parties have seized on Turner’s stance as evidence of disarray within Labour and a broader scepticism toward judge‑only trials. Some Tory voices argue the plan risks undermining fairness and could fuel public distrust in the justice system.

Legal and Civil Society Voices

Critics from legal circles — including academics and former judges — have also weighed in. They question whether judge‑only trials would significantly reduce delays and stress that backlogs stem from chronic underfunding and systemic issues, not juries per se.

Supporters of the reforms highlight the pressing need to tackle backlogs that exceed historical norms, asserting that modernising the system is unavoidable.

What This Means for Starmer and Labour

Turner’s threat has broader political implications:

1. Party Unity Under Strain

Labour won power on a platform emphasizing competence, stability, and reform. A public rebellion like this — particularly over a justice policy — threatens to expose rifts that could damage Starmer’s agenda.

2. Electoral Risk in the North

If Turner were to resign and a by‑election were held, Labour risks losing a marginal northern seat to Reform UK, emboldening populist challengers and embittering core voters who feel abandoned on “bread‑and‑butter” issues like justice and fairness.

3. Policy Calculus and Public Opinion

The incident underscores a key dilemma for Starmer: should he prioritise swift justice reform with potential internal opposition and public backlash, or temper the plan to preserve unity and protect foundational legal rights? It’s a choice that could reverberate through general election campaigning and beyond.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment in UK Justice Politics

Karl Turner’s threat to trigger a by‑election over jury trial reforms is more than a personal protest. It’s a symbolic flashpoint in a larger debate over justice, rights, and the soul of British governance. Whether Turner follows through, whether Starmer adjusts course, and what voters ultimately think on this question — these are unfolding political questions with significant consequences.

At stake are issues of legal tradition versus modernisation, party discipline versus principle, and electoral strategy versus constitutional rights. How this drama plays out will shape not only the future of UK criminal justice reform, but also perceptions of Labour leadership and the broader health of UK democracy.