CAN ENGLAND STILL BE ENGLISH WITHOUT TRIAL BY JURY?

The effective classifying of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation has caused stirring amongst many in the legal profession and been amplified by some unexpected sources. The Times earlier this week had a leader opposing the legislation now applied to PA.  Simultaneously the mooted addition to the courts system whereby an intermediate court over which a District Judge [MC] would preside assisted by two magistrates has those same legal eagles in a spin.  Trial by jury is considered one of the inalienable rights of being an English person.  It ranks with Our NHS as a virtual totem created with wisdom and to be venerated by all. Millions, probably billions, of words on the topic are available for anyone with a functioning keyboard. Is it immutable?

Jury trial is a mainstay of predominantly societies deriving from the British era of colonisation; USA, Canada, Australia etc although some such nations notably India have dispensed with the format.  The proscribing of PA has raised an interesting question touched upon here last week when a spokesperson of said group was quoted as saying,  "The public is on our side. Remember that being acquitted can happen and we’re seeing it happen now."  Last Friday, Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, told a public meeting of more than 1,000 supporters that campaigns of civil disobedience, "will make the ban unenforceable."  

 In England and Wales peremptory challenges which allow defendants to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors without giving a reason were abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, specifically under section 118.

Now both the prosecution and defence may only challenge a juror "for cause". This means they must provide a specific, valid reason for objecting to a juror’s inclusion, such as:

• The juror is personally known to a party or a witness.

• The juror has a conflict of interest or bias.

• The juror is disqualified, e.g., due to a criminal conviction.

Challenges for cause are rare and are scrutinized by the trial judge who decides whether the juror should be excluded. Although peremptory challenges no longer exist, the judge can still stand jurors by for consideration (effectively sidelining them) in certain cases, particularly if concerns about fairness or impartiality arise. Additionally, the jury vetting process allows for some background checks in limited circumstances (usually national security or high-profile cases), but this is strictly regulated.

At the time of my appointment I had to state on the application which party I had voted for in the previous general election.  That requirement was abolished some years later.  I suppose in the minds of the "great and the good" who drafted such questions a politically balanced magistracy was an enhancement to the concept of all people being  equal under the law. In today`s England the great and the good are more interested in whether you consider yourself  white Welsh or brown Indian or perhaps black African.  Three incubating disturbing trends  which are likely in my opinion to be major factors in our society by 2030 are the disillusionment with the two main political parties, the rise of a minority although vociferous Muslim minority seeking protection for Islam as a religion under the law and a corresponding rise in ouvert antisemitism camouflaged as anti Zionism precipitated by the reaction to the Hamas massacre of October 7th 2023 in Israel such racism having been shown historically to be a prelude to underlying societal breakdown or worse. 

How likely or unlikely would it be for the verdicts of controversial trials to be determined on the political bias of jurors as quoted above by PA?  It is my opinion that that alone is an argument for dispensing with jury trials at least in such cases as happened in Northern Ireland during the Troubles when Diplock Courts were  established.  The alternative would be adopting the American system where jurors can be excluded .

As with so much of everything that is British, changes will be made only when the powers that be have been hurtled into a situation either unforeseen or facing problems that have been swept under the carpet for them and the rest of us to forget.