We must defend trial by jury

The government’s alarming plan to allow for trials without juries is an unacceptable assault on our democratic rights.

Kristen Barrett-Casey

Topics Politics UK

One of the biggest assaults on democratic rights in recent UK history could be on its way. Last month, justice secretary Robert Buckland QC announced to MPs on the Justice Select Committee that, within weeks, legislation could be passed that would allow for trial without jury. This is a significant threat to justice and democracy in the UK. Trial by jury has been a crucial principle in English Common Law since the invasion of the Vikings, under the earliest legal system of King Æthelred. So why is it being abolished now?

Ostensibly, it is because the coronavirus pandemic has created a backlog of court cases. Buckland has also tried to reassure critics that trials with a judge and two magistrates were a ‘last resort’ and only one of many options being discussed. The move would be limited to cases where the maximum sentence was two years, and would be ‘temporary’.

Buckland estimates that this could increase the capacity of courts by 40 per cent. However, since the start of the lockdown, the number of cases waiting in magistrates’ courts has only risen from 406,610 to 484,000. The number of serious cases only increased by 1,321 from March to May. It is clear that the numbers do not warrant such a radical overhaul of the legal system, and it is our duty to speak out before any semblance of a fair trial is dropped altogether.

There have long been debates and proposals within the legal profession about removing juries, with justifications ranging from protection of jurors and saving money in an ever-stressed system to the simple fact that juries are difficult to manage and are unpredictable. Since the 1970s, ‘Diplock’ courts have been used in Northern Ireland without juries for terror-related trials. Since 2003, the Criminal Justice Act has allowed for judge-only trials where there is a ‘real and present danger’ of jury-tampering (though to date only one trial has taken place under these provisions). As recently as 2014, chief justice Lord Thomas proposed scrapping juries in cases of minor offences and complex fraud in an attempt to save money.

There have also been many blows to the justice system in recent years. Since the 2008 financial crisis, courts have been shut down throughout the country, legal aid has been cut to the bone, and attempts have been made to limit the right to examine material held by the prosecution. What’s more, it often feels like the outcome of high-profile cases have already been judged by the media before they have even reached court.

Given the legal establishment’s long history of attempts to remove juries, it is not surprising that it has tried to capitalise on the chaos of the lockdown. During the pandemic, the ruling elites across the world have been turning towards more and more authoritarian methods of governance, handing excessive powers to the police and removing checks and balances on the legal system.

Buckland’s authoritarian proposals are not limited to jury trials. In response to the recent Black Lives Matter protests, both Buckland and home secretary Priti Patel have proposed the revival of the fast-track court system used during the 2011 riots. This would mean potential convictions and sentences could be processed within 24 hours of an offence being committed. Such speed will inevitably have an impact on the process of justice, and could well lead to many innocent or peaceful protesters being wrongfully convicted.

To allow trial without jury is to drop any pretence of democracy. The right to be judged by our peers is one of the oldest and most important principles we have in this country. Juries provide an independent check on the power of the state and judicial system. That we, the people, make juries is one of the few connections most of us have to our justice system – especially when the barriers to the legal profession are impenetrable for most.

If we do not act to stop this ‘temporary’ solution, it is all too likely that it will remain for good.

Kristen Barrett-Casey is a writer.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Stef Steer

7th July 2020 at 4:05 pm

All governments of whatever stripe since blair keep pushing and pushing at freedoms, checks and balances. This one under the guise of covid legislation have got rid of two Dr’s signing a death certificate and two psychiatrists having to agree to section someone. Get rid of jury trials too and what is the difference between our state and a totalitarian regime?

Chris Stapleton

7th July 2020 at 1:56 pm

There are only three things the establishment fears; the electorate (see Brexit), the presumption of innocence…. and trial by jury.

The right to trial by jury is now being threatened under the cover of Covid. The proposal to do away with juries altogether has been rejected, but as a first step towards this objective the proposal is now to reduce the jury to 9 or even 7, for the sake of “convenience”.
Of course, the politically correct establishment would love to remove juries, because they reflect the values of mainstream society and to replace them with their woke payroll stooges. Juries are the only thing that stands in the way of a completely feminist “justice system” that would apply guilt by accusation to men accused of any offence against women.

Barbara Baker

7th July 2020 at 1:20 pm

The lunatics are definitely running the specialist care/therapy/training centre for all the wrong thinkers.
Not much point taking the moral high ground over Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the Falklands if we cannot hold and defend the very cornerstones of our own democracy.

Marvin Jones

7th July 2020 at 12:26 pm

Only someone without the ability to logically see the demographic changes in this country in the last 40 years, and the mutation of how like sheep the young follow their peers who have this hatred and disgust of their country’s history and achievements, only to follow a hatred of this country, cultures and any allegiance to the lands that they decide to parasite on for their human rights protections and benefits handed out like confetti. In a growing number of the majority BAME residents, can one ever see a BAME criminal being found guilty?

Dominic Straiton

7th July 2020 at 12:24 pm

Trial by Jury is the defender of freedom from the state, which is why is doesnt exist in nearly all of the eu and is a glaring omission from “human rights” act.

Neil John

7th July 2020 at 3:42 pm

Indeed, as the travesty of justice that the ‘family court’ system provides proves all too clearly.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film