By Andi Hoxhaj
For hundreds of years in Britain, juries have been the bedrock of the justice system. The right to be tried by your fellow citizens ensures not only that justice is done, but that it is seen to be done. However, the Labour government is seeking to erode this ancient and vital element of criminal trials.
Juries help ensure that sentences are proportionate to the crime; in some cases juries declare innocence because they consider the charges unfair.
The Public Bills Committee is currently examining the government's proposed Courts and Tribunals Bill. It is expected to report to Parliament at the end of April on the details of the bill, after which a final reading and a vote to approve or reject it is expected in May.
The proposed bill would remove the right to a jury trial in around half of the cases that currently go before juries, replacing them with trials by a judge alone; it would increase the sentencing powers of magistrates' courts to 18 or 24 months (from the current 12 months); and it would remove the automatic right to appeal a decision or sentence given by the magistrates' court to the Crown Court.
Justice Secretary David Lammy claims the bill aims to make justice fairer and reduce the backlog of more than 78,000 cases waiting in the Crown Court, with some trials currently scheduled for 2029 and 2030. Lammy argues that judge-only trials will speed up proceedings, taking around 20 per cent less time than jury trials. Currently, cases can take an average of 332 days from charge to conclusion.
A better approach than the legislation proposed by Lammy would be to invest in the justice system so that it has the resources it needs to cope with the backlog of cases; the crisis stems from funding cuts since 2011–12. The government should also stop treating the justice system as a broken machine and recognise it as a critical and sophisticated infrastructure that requires investment to improve its functioning.
Abolishing juries and limiting appeals would not solve the backlog of cases as Lammy suggests; instead, it would destroy the checks and balances that protect against state overreach and undermine any claim to a fair justice system.
The right to a trial by jury is enshrined in Magna Carta (1215) and the Act for the Abolition of the Court of Star Chamber (1641); together with the right of appeal, they are fundamental protections in the constitution of the United Kingdom. These legal norms have also influenced other constitutions, such as the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 38 of the Constitution of Ireland.
The purpose of a jury trial is to ensure that criminal justice – an inherently adversarial process – remains a bulwark against a potentially oppressive state, represented by the prosecution. It is an essential safety valve within the legal system.
Juries help ensure that sentences are proportionate to the crime; in some cases juries find acquittals because they consider the charges unfair or the defendant's conduct necessary or virtuous, while judges may be more inclined to find guilt than juries.
Juries also reduce bias by bringing together twelve randomly selected citizens with diverse life experiences. Today, 89 percent of judges are white, 61 percent are male, and about a third have attended private schools; fewer than ten percent come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
A jury selected from the electoral register might include someone who left school at 16, someone who has been unemployed or experienced housing insecurity, someone who has done manual labor, or someone from a community with strained relations with the police. These perspectives bring diverse and valuable insights into how society works.
The government's proposal to move to judge-only trials would disadvantage future defendants compared to the current system. Parliament should therefore reject any removal of the right to a jury trial – jury trials help to deliver fair decisions.
The second major problem with the bill is that it proposes to remove the right to appeal a magistrates' court decision, which would undermine fundamental constitutional rights.
Recent analysis of criminal court statistics shows that appeals from magistrates' courts to the Crown Court have a high success rate: over 40 per cent of appeals against convictions and around 47 per cent of appeals against sentences are successful, often leading to the original decision being overturned.
A government that aims to make the justice system fairer and more effective should not undermine constitutional rights that date back to the Magna Carta. Instead, it should invest in the justice system, recognizing it as a vital national infrastructure – on the same level as railways, electricity grids, and health and education services.
A functioning justice system contributes significantly to economic growth, a priority for the Labour government. The UK's respected justice system is essential to building the confidence needed for trade and investment.
Limiting jury trials and the right to appeal may seem like a quick way to reduce the backlog, but the delays stem from broader capacity constraints caused by inadequate funding.
Parliament should not pass the bill in its current form; it will neither make the justice system fairer nor ease the pressure on prisons. On the contrary, it will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice and erode public trust in the courts.
This trust has been built over more than 800 years, since the signing of the Magna Carta, and it would be very difficult to restore.
The bill is a half-hearted attempt to cover up a problem that, instead of solving it, would weaken the constitutional rights of citizens and our democracy.
Written by:
Andi Hoxhaj
Dr. Andi Hoxhaj OBE is a lecturer in law and director of the LLM European Law programme at King's College London.
