Scrapping trial by jury is an assault on our liberty

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

These are not my words, but a direct quote from David Lammy, then the Shadow Justice Secretary, in June 2020. And they are absolutely spot on. Lammy was right, even in the midst of the unprecedented strain on our justice system caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, to stand up for one of the English legal system’s most fundamental principles. Trial by jury has been a core part of our society since 1215, when Magna Carta established no one should be punished “except by the lawful judgement of his peers.” Lammy’s comments doubled down on his prior support for jury trials in 2017, when he concluded that juries were the “success story” of our justice system, and our strongest weapon against racial bias. Yet merely five years on from his principled and commendable defence of jury trials the now-Deputy Prime Minister has changed his tune, with a leaked justice department memo revealing plans to scrap trial by jury in all but the most serious of cases.

Make no mistake, if these plans come to fruition, it would represent one of the gravest violations of our fundamental freedoms in peacetime history

Under the new plans, all cases bar those concerning murder, rape, and manslaughter will no longer be held in front of juries, but heard by a judge alone unless it is deemed to be ‘in the public interest’ to have a jury (you could be forgiven for thinking it was ‘in the public interest’ that nobody was detained whilst being deprived of their fundamental rights, but clearly not). 

Make no mistake: if these plans come to fruition, it would represent one of the gravest violations of our fundamental freedoms in peacetime history. Without question, the current court backlog – which is currently composed of 78,000 cases – is unacceptable, but there is little evidence to suggest jury trials are the root of the problem; indeed, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, has claimed the plan “simply won’t work.” Ultimately though, the efficiency of the plan should not be our primary concern. Instead, it is Lammy’s assertion that there is “no right to a trial by jury” that should send a shiver down the spine of every right-minded Briton. 

It was Thomas Jefferson who said that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” These plans, which given the government’s overwhelming majority in the House of Commons are likely to pass if pushed for by Number 10, would mean that when the government prosecutes, it is no longer our fellow citizens who judge us but another extension of the state. It would remove one of the only safeguards we have against unfair prosecution. Were this plan proposed under the last Conservative government, by Nigel Farage, or in the United States under Donald Trump it would rightfully be condemned as an egregious assault on the most fundamental of human rights.

Were an American government to try this, their people would right on the streets – and they would be right to do so

The scope of the power Lammy seeks to hand the government is chilling. Judges are professionals who will no doubt seek to apply the law to the best of their abilities, but they are in essence an instrument of the state. Juries are the one part of the prosecution process when the government must persuade the public it has been elected to serve, not just its own officials. Furthermore, given the UK has no codified constitution and parliament is sovereign over the judiciary, judges are bound to apply the law as written by parliament. This includes controversial legislation such as the Public Order Act 2023, which places severe limits on protests which cause “severe disruption”, and opens the door for further infringement on freedom of speech.

Perhaps more pertinently it comes whilst the government is seeking to prosecute over 2,100 people for partaking in peaceful protests in support of the group Palestine Action, which the government labelled a terrorist organisation earlier this year. Now, it is likely that these supposed terrorist sympathisers will be convicted en masse without the consent of a single member of the general public. This is a monumental and unprecedented infringement on freedom of speech which deserves the strongest of reactions from the general public. Were an American government to try this, their people would riot on the streets – and they would be right to do so.

Sadly, however, this turn of events is not a huge surprise – instead it is the natural next step from a government which has (ironically given our Prime Minister is a human rights lawyer) routinely acted to clamp down on our freedoms since taking office 17 months ago. The aforementioned arrests of thousands of citizens whose supposed ‘crime’ is merely exercising their democratic rights to protest is worrying enough, but it adds to a litany of appalling examples of overreach presided over by Sir Keir Starmer. In September, author Graham Linehan was arrested by armed police at Heathrow for a post on X, following on from the sentencing of mother-of-three Lucy Connolly to 31 months in prison in October of last year for posts (which, however objectionable, did not amount to the active incitement of violence) made during the Southport riots.

Perhaps most gallingly, the launch of a mandatory digital ID scheme by 2029, paired with increased powers given to police to use facial recognition technology in public, will expand the extent of state surveillance and direct control over our lives to levels only previously seen in episodes of Black Mirror. In rhetoric and policy this government has made it clear it does not trust the average Briton, and the scrapping of jury trials is merely another method by which they can transfer yet more power into the hands of Westminster’s political elite.

Let us be clear: this government simply does not trust you

Regrettably, such sentiment is hardly surprising coming from Lammy. Just two days after the 2016 EU referendum he called on parliament to “stop this madness” of respecting the biggest democratic exercise in British history, arguing that whilst “it is clear people are angry with the political class” parliament had a duty to overturn the decision to leave the EU. Regardless of the merits of Brexit, undoubtedly a flawed and imperfect process, Lammy’s contempt for the ordinary person is deeply concerning. A far more pressing issue however is that this elitist Millian view of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ has become mainstream within this Labour government. Let us be clear: this government simply does not trust you. It thinks it has the right – the duty, even – to run your life for you, and the plan to scrap trial by jury is simply the next stage of its covert campaign to centralise power, remove checks and balances, and reduce the necessary influence of ordinary people over their own lives. Scrapping trial by jury is a direct assault on our liberty, and unless we do something about it it won’t be the last.