Trial by jury is an ancient right

Faced with a reported backlog of 77,000 cases in the criminal courts, the UK government appears poised to abolish jury trials for a range of criminal offences, as recommended in Sir Brian Leveson’s recent report.

Leveson, who was tasked by the Labour government in December with finding a solution to this backlog, is certainly confronting a serious problem: victims and alleged offenders are often waiting years to have their cases heard. But if the government and justice secretary Shabana Mahmood accept the report, which seems likely, they will be making a dangerous trade-off: a swifter justice system at the cost of justice.

Leveson claims that reducing the number of crimes eligible for trial by jury – such as fraud, assaults on emergency workers and possession of indecent photographs – would accelerate the dispensation of justice by at least ‘20 per cent’. He also suggests establishing an intermediate court, in which a crown court judge would sit with two magistrates, without a jury. He says all this is necessary if we are to avoid ‘total system collapse’. Labour is due to respond to his recommendations in the autumn. Before the government acts on Leveson’s dire predictions, it should consider what we could lose by eroding jury trials.

Perhaps of most concern is the evidence from New South Wales, Australia’s largest state, where almost any crime with a custodial sentence may be eligible for a judge-only trial if both parties agree. It indicates a strong correlation between judge-only trials and acquittals. Indeed, it suggests that the absence of a jury results in radically lower conviction rates – by 12 per cent, to be precise. Such disparities would only further undermine public trust in the justice system.

The second problem concerns Leveson’s contention that some cases are too difficult for the public to understand. Specifically, he recommends that ‘serious and complex’ fraud cases should be heard by a judge only. This raises the spectre of what former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes once described as a ‘white-collar defendant getting a white-collar judge’. And a white-collar acquittal, it would seem. This government is often accused of presiding over a ‘two-tier’ justice system – a charge it seems highly sensitive to. Yet by accepting Leveson’s recommendations, it would be making such bias even more likely.

It has never been proven that juries are incapable of comprehending fraud cases. Leveson’s report fails to address the fact that modern juries handle everything from complex cryptocurrency cases to market-distortion conspiracies, yet there is no evidence this has led to miscarriages of justice.

Jury verdicts command a high level of respect and legitimacy. There is a reason why being accused of acting as both ‘judge and jury’ has long been shorthand for unfairness – and why surveys often find that the public considers trial by jury to be one of our most precious rights.

Rights are delicate things, and once they are gone, they do not come back. In recent decades, we have lost many liberties that were once considered inalienable. We no longer have an unqualified right to silence. Nor is there a right to trial by jury in a defamation trial. We have lost these liberties over the years because governments of all stripes have prioritised ‘efficiency’, or a desire to appear tough on crime, over justice.

Yes, our court system is dangerously overloaded. But weakening our ancient right to trial by jury, pushing the public out of the justice system, poses a far greater danger to justice itself. This is a trade-off we cannot accept.

Dennis Kavanagh is a director of Gay Men’s Network.