The unthinking authoritarianism of Labour’s jury-trial reforms

The Labour government is in the process of committing a profound act of constitutional vandalism. Yesterday, the House of Commons voted to pass the Courts and Tribunals Bill, a piece of legislation that will significantly limit the right to trial by jury in England and Wales.

The bill proposes removing a defendant’s right to insist on a jury trial for many mid-level ‘either-way’ offences, from cases of sexual assault and grievous bodily harm to burglary and theft. These are offences that can currently be tried either in the Magistrates’ Court, before a judge or bench of magistrates, or in the Crown Court, before a judge and jury. Under the proposals, defendants accused of these offences would no longer be able to elect a Crown Court jury trial.

The legislation would also increase the maximum sentencing powers of magistrates, from the current limit of 12 months in jail to, in some cases, up to two years. In addition, the new law would restrict the ability of defendants to appeal convictions from the Magistrates’ Court in the Crown Court. This reduces a convicted individual’s chances of challenging guilty verdicts delivered by a single judge or by magistrates.

The Labour government insists this is a necessary reform to reduce the massive backlog of cases in the courts. But critics see something else – the construction of a conviction machine, designed to remove procedural barriers that allow defendants to contest the case against them. The state gains in power, while an individual’s ability to challenge it shrinks.

The government’s justification for the reforms is well known. The Crown Court system is indeed under severe strain. The backlog of cases stands at roughly 80,000. Without intervention, it could exceed 100,000 by 2028. Trials are being listed years into the future, leaving victims and defendants alike waiting for justice.

Justice minister David Lammy argues that limiting jury trials will relieve pressure on the Crown Court system. The government claims that the new legislation will reduce demand on Crown Courts by 20 per cent within three years.

But such figures are highly speculative and uncertain. Magistrates may still decide to send cases to the Crown Court if they believe the offences to be sufficiently serious. In practice, it is unclear how courts are supposed to determine in advance whether a defendant should be entitled to a Crown Court trial.

Consider a typical ‘either-way’ offence. Many carry a wide sentencing range – from a community order to several years’ imprisonment. A court might face a case where the potential sentence could plausibly fall anywhere between, say, a community penalty and a four-year custodial sentence. Yet under the proposed new system, judges or magistrates may have to decide in advance whether the case is serious enough to justify a jury trial.

That requires courts to make an early assessment of particular cases before hearing all the evidence. The decision would inevitably involve speculation about facts that may only become clear during trial. Far from simplifying the system, this risks adding further procedural complexity and therefore increasing the workload within the system.

But practical concerns are not the main issue here. The deeper problem is that those advancing this legislation seem utterly indifferent to the threat it poses to justice and citizens’ rights. They talk about it entirely in managerial terms, as a logistical, bureaucratic measure. It is impossible to discern any political principle behind the bill. Prime minister Keir Starmer is supposed to be a human-rights lawyer, yet he is presiding over one of the most significant attacks on civil liberties in modern times.

Labour MPs rallying behind the bill claim it will provide ‘justice for victims’. But this is just cant. The criminal-justice system is not being crippled by too many jury trials. No, it’s suffering from years of underinvestment, court closures and staff shortages. The unthinking authoritarianism of this Labour government is no answer to this crisis.

Trial by jury is one of the oldest citizens’ protections in the British constitutional tradition. It reflects the principle that the state should not be able to imprison individuals without the judgement of their peers. In this way, juries have always been a vital curb on the worst excesses of the state. Restricting that right can only aid the worst excesses of the state.

All is not yet lost, of course. The bill must still pass through further stages of parliamentary scrutiny, including in the House of Lords, before it returns to the Commons for detailed committee examination. Some Labour MPs have expressed unease about the proposals, and there are rumours that more could rebel at later stages.

But I’m not convinced any rebellion will be enough. This Labour government and their MPs are largely of very low quality, even by recent parliamentary standards. Sadly, they are sufficiently unthinking and politically unprincipled to pass these measures without a care for the constitutional damage they are doing. If we are to protect the light that shows that freedom lives, we have an almighty fight on our hands.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and author. His most recent book is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is published by Zero Books. Order it here.