One of our most ancient freedoms is under threat. Here’s why we should protect jury trials:
For years, Britain has been respected around the world for the quality and independence of its judiciary. Now, there are legitimate questions about whether those once-high standards are being maintained in every case. Too often we have seen judges making decisions that are totally out of step with the public’s instincts, whether on immigration, asylum or free speech. At a time when trust in the justice system is already in short supply, we cannot afford to dismantle this crucial safeguard. Yet that’s exactly what this Labour Government might be about to do. It’s no secret that Britain’s courts are a mess. After Covid, barristers’ strikes, and a marked rise in certain types of crime, the number of cases waiting for trial stands at a record high. Rape cases are now being scheduled as far away as 2029, a horrific delay in justice for victims. Shamefully, this backlog has only grown since Labour came to power, with 750 cases added every month. So what’s their plan to solve this crisis? If yesterday’s Leveson Review is anything to go by, they look set to provide yet more sentencing discounts, which could see criminals serve as little as 20 per cent of their sentence. The proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases is just as pernicious, eroding one of this country’s ancient liberties. According to Courts Minister Sarah Sackman, this is “an idea whose time has probably come”. By the report’s own admission, scrapping jury trials will only have a “limited impact” on the court backlog. It will save £31 million, amounting to just 0.2 per cent of the Ministry of Justice’s budget. And while the report only recommends scrapping jury trials in some cases, it also says that there is “no limit” to the cases that jury trials might be removed from in future. What’s more, it suggests giving judges a blanket power to decide which cases are too “complex” for juries to opine on. That’s a slippery slope which could end in the total abolition of jury trials. Scrapping this pillar of our constitution for the sake of (very limited) administrative convenience is a disgrace. Alongside parliamentary democracy, trial by jury ranks as one of this country’s greatest gifts to the world. Today, jury trials are one of the few ways in which ordinary members of the public can play a part in the justice system – a crucial safeguard against judicial overreach. In his report, Leveson invokes Lord Devlin, one of the greatest legal minds of the 20th century. Yet it was Lord Devlin who called jury trials “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”, noting that “no tyrant could ever afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of 12 of his countrymen”. Devlin was correct. Jury trial has long ensured that the law can never stray too far from the common sense of the British public, reining in the mistaken impulses of an occasionally fallible judicial branch. Take the case of Jamie Michael, a former Royal Marine who was arrested after he posted a Facebook video urging people to organise peacefully against migrant hotels. He faced a jury at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, who took just 17 minutes to clear him of stirring up racial hatred. While critics claim that juries are slow, the public can draw the line between clumsy anger and real incitement faster than any official. So why is the Government being so careless with one of our constitutional traditions? The answer is simply because the Labour Party thinks that judges always know best. We see it in their approach to the Chagos Islands, the European Convention on Human Rights and, now, in their willingness to scrap jury trials. For Keir Starmer, the rule of law simply equals rule by lawyers; it’s no surprise that these instincts are shared by his Labour colleagues. To paraphrase the philosopher Roger Scruton, trust in our justice system is easily destroyed, but not easily created. Jury trials must be left alone.
