Legal professionals have mounted a robust defence of the UK's jury system, following suggestions that its use should be significantly reduced to tackle court backlogs. In a series of letters to the Guardian, barristers and a part-time judge argued that juries provide an indispensable democratic safeguard and a unique human perspective within the adversarial justice system.
The 'Humane Perspective' of Ordinary Citizens
The debate was ignited by commentator Simon Jenkins, who recently argued in favour of Justice Secretary David Lammy's memo on slashing jury use. However, barristers Simeon Wallis and Francis FitzGibbon KC strongly contested this view. They emphasised that jurors bring a 'humane, rounded perspective' to court proceedings that trained legal professionals, who spend their entire careers in court, inherently lack.
Wallis pointedly asked whether a 'case-hardened professional judge' on their 'umpteenth grievous bodily harm case' would retain the same sense of proportion as a jury when analysing facts. This, he argues, is the system's best safeguard in serious cases.
Addressing the Real Cause of Court Backlogs
Diana Good, who sits as a part-time judge in criminal courts, challenged the premise that juries are to blame for systemic delays. She stated that the terrible court backlogs and numbers of defendants detained without trial are a direct result of 'massive underfunding', not the jury system.
Good also dismissed the notion that barristers favour juries because they 'want an audience', a claim she attributed to watching too much television. "Barristers want to be paid, not to have an audience," she wrote. Her proposed solution is straightforward: increased funding for the justice system, not the abandonment of trial by jury.
The Jury's Power of Conscience Versus Legal Harshness
Francis FitzGibbon KC identified a further, critical value of the jury system: its role as a buffer against the sometimes excessive harshness of the law. Reflecting on Jenkins's own experience as a juror, where a guilty verdict seemed 'grotesque', FitzGibbon noted that juries have the unique ability to decide a case according to conscience.
"Judges can only apply the law in all its grotesque harshness, whether they like it or not," he argued. He warned that abolishing juries would remove a vital protection against legally sanctioned oppression, leaving sentencing entirely in the hands of the judiciary. The letters collectively present a united front from within the legal profession, championing the jury not as an archaic inconvenience, but as a cornerstone of democratic justice that requires protection and proper resourcing.
