In a dramatic policy reversal, Justice Secretary David Lammy has announced plans to drastically reduce the number of criminal cases heard by a jury in England and Wales. The move, which would see jury trials reserved only for defendants facing a potential sentence of more than three years, effectively halves their use and marks a significant departure from centuries of legal tradition.
A Stark Reversal on a Fundamental Right
The announcement represents a profound about-turn for key figures in the Labour government. David Lammy himself previously argued that 'criminal trials without juries are a bad idea' and that dispensing with them would 'damage our democracy'. Similarly, a young Keir Starmer, writing for the Society of Socialist Lawyers in 1992, advocated for a 'right of trial by jury in all criminal cases', accepting the 'inevitable increase in costs' as a price worth paying for a fundamental liberty.
Under the proposed reforms, the ancient right to trial by one's peers, a principle enshrined since before the Magna Carta of 1215, will be severely curtailed. This system, described by jurist Lord Devlin as 'the lamp that shows that freedom lives', pools the collective wisdom of twelve ordinary citizens, acting as a crucial check on state power.
Free Speech and the Court Backlog Excuse
Campaigners warn the change poses a particular threat in cases involving free speech. The Free Speech Union highlights that defendants using free speech as a defence are more than twice as likely to be acquitted in Crown Courts with juries compared to magistrates' courts. They argue that removing juries will lead to more convictions for speech offences, leaving judges alone to decide the fate of individuals for offensive online posts.
Lammy justifies the radical shift by citing the spiralling court backlog, which has grown by 10% in the past year with some cases listed as far ahead as 2030. However, critics, including the Criminal Bar Association, contend that jury trials are not the primary cause of the delays and that scrapping them will not meaningfully reduce the list. When pressed in the House of Commons, Lammy could not guarantee his changes would cut the backlog by the next election.
Alternative Solutions and a Question of Priorities
Opponents, like Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, argue the government is attacking a symptom while ignoring the disease. They point to systemic inefficiencies: over 50 Crown courtrooms sat empty yesterday across England and Wales, with more than 21,000 court days going 'unused' this year alone. Filling these courtrooms could, they claim, reduce the backlog by up to 10,000 cases annually.
Further solutions include reforming the probation service, overhauling court listings, and tackling delays in prison transfers. The debate also touches on spending priorities; last year's entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5billion, nearly the £5.4billion spent on housing illegal migrants. This, critics say, reveals a government suspicious of institutions that give the British people a direct say, echoing Sir Keir Starmer's past push for a second EU referendum.
The core accusation is that Lammy and Starmer are curbing jury trials because they do not trust ordinary people. As one case in Merthyr Tydfil demonstrated, where a jury took just 17 minutes to acquit a former Royal Marine of hate speech charges, the public's common-sense understanding of justice can differ sharply from the legal establishment's. The government now faces fierce resistance to a policy viewed as carelessly casting aside a home-grown right that has endured for over 800 years.
