In 2000 The Labour government first attempted to abolish a defendant's absolute right to elect a jury trial for "either-way" offences. In 2003 the government successfully passed legislation allowing for judge only trials in very specific circumstances such as complex fraud cases or instances where there was a significant risk of jury tampering. On 25 November 2025 a leaked internal Ministry of Justice memo revealed plans to eliminate juries for most crown court cases. This was formally announced to Parliament shortly after on 2 December 2025 by Justice Secretary David Lammy. And after the parliamentary Christmas recess the s*** surely hit the fan.
The prime, even the only, public argument Starmer`s government had for this radical proposal was that it would reduce the crown court backlog which had reached c 80,000 cases. A report by the Institute for Government estimated that the proposal would reduce that figure by around only 2%. The reasoning was that there are myriad practical causes of delay; crumbling infrastructure, staff shortages and administrative failures to name but a few. The majority of the legal profession was incensed, the erosion of democratic rights being the most quoted argument leading to loss of public confidence and a claim that there would be a disproportionate impact on minorities.
Could there be another reason, so distant from the public or even private limits of "out of orbit" thinking for the proposed changes?
In April 2021 six Extinction Rebellion protesters were acquitted of causing £25,000 worth of criminal damage to Shell’s London headquarters. They won despite the judge explicitly instructing the jury that they had no defence under the law. On 5 January 2022 a Bristol crown court jury acquitted the "Colston Four." The jury used its ancient right of conscience (jury equity) to acquit them. It was a perverse verdict. Other "perverse" verdicts followed. In January 2024 a jury acquitted the "Palestine Action" activists who occupied and caused major damage to a Thales weapons factory in Glasgow, accepting the defence that they were acting to prevent war crimes. A month later 5 climate activists from the group Plan B Earth were acquitted of criminal damage after spraying paint on the Treasury building despite a judicial warning that their climate anxieties did not constitute a lawful excuse. The "Just Stop Oil" Signage Acquittals (Mid-2024) followed the high profile arrest of retired social worker Trudi Warner for holding a sign outside a court reminding jurors of their ancient right to acquit according to their conscience. Several subsequent trials of Just Stop Oil protesters resulted in total acquittals. Jurors explicitly rejected judicial directives to ignore the "global climate emergency" when deciding on charges of public nuisance and criminal damage. More details are available by typing perverse verdicts in search box.
With further crown court trials in the offing where jurors`political motivations might undermine evidence based conclusions is the government making a desperate attempt to preserve traditional judicial norms by appearing to undermine them? If the government indeed has a case to answer might it be that it has shot itself in the foot by rejecting a more middle way to achieve its aim?
The most favoured alternative to the current judge and jury system re either way cases was put forward in 2001 by Sir Robin Auld who recommended creating a unified, three-tier court system to replace the division between the magistrates and crown courts. The proposal caused immediate outrage from the Bar Council and Law Society who branded it an "assault on jury trial". Because it was a political "hot potato," the Labour government dropped the idea. The exact judge plus two magistrates blueprint was resurrected in July 2025 by Sir Brian Leveson who again proposed a single judge sitting with two magistrates to hear cases with anticipated sentences of up to three years. Instead of adopting Leveson and Auld's balanced intermediate panel the government pushed ahead with solely judge only trials for the new "Swift Courts". This choice heavily intensified the current political backlash.
Into this cauldron of frenzied legal xenophobia this humble retired magistrate proposes now is the time for something completely different. To reconcile the lack of a jury let there be created an "upper magistrates court" where five presiding lay magistrates would sit on those contentious trials with a legal advisor as in all current cases where magistrates form a bench. To remove the fear of an "outlier" magistrate debasing the system a majority verdict of 4:1 would be enough to reach a verdict. Furthermore the proposed removal of a right to appeal would itself be removed. In itself that would give the public confidence that justice would be seen to be done.
Considering that every government proposal is subjected in minute detail into how it`s going to be paid for the above alternative hasn't been costed by anyone. The judge alone "swift court" model is projected to save time rather than money directly; around reducing trial time by an estimated 20% translating to roughly 9,000 sitting days saved once the system is fully staffed. The Institute for Government flagged that the government hasn't published cost estimates for the magistrate involving options at all. A five person lay bench would cost more per sitting day than the current single judge, single magistrate or traditional three magistrate bench models but less than a 12 person jury trial with full jury expenses, jury management infrastructure, and (often) longer trial length.
To sum up my prosed changes: They build on the existing magistrates bench + legal adviser structure rather than inventing a new mechanism so it's low risk and not unprecedented. Five highly experienced bench members with a 4:1 threshold gives a stronger safeguard against a single outlier than the current 2:1/three bench majority. A guaranteed appeal right restores a safety net the government's Bill is currently removing. Finally and perhaps overriding much of the above the public is more likely to find this change acceptable as a development of the current position. However it is unlikely that die hard members of the legal fraternity would be persuaded.
There are always those on any topic who are traditionalists. They abhor change; any change. They are the Luddites of our age. MOJ data shows magistrates courts run four times faster than crown court and the guaranteed appeals would risk clawing that speed back. That factor is not insurmountable if the basic change were accepted as viable. It is impossible to compare possible costs with current or proposed costs.
With our new prime minister behaving like somebody who thinks he can produce a fine Burgundy by waving a magic wand spin is more important than functionality. The forms our justice system will take are being paraded like the entrants for a 1950s beauty contest. Perhaps those who make the rules don`t get out enough. It`s time they got out of the box. Truly what a state we`re in.
No comments:
Post a Comment