Friday, November 21, 2025
Trial by jury should remain a fundamental right
The Guardian reports that the courts minister has promised to enact radical changes to limit jury trials by the next election, because, she says that criminals are“gaming the system” by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing.
According to the paper, Sarah Sackman claims that drug dealers and career criminals are “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial. She believes that that inaction will be a road to “chaos and ruin”:
Ministers will legislate to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in one of the biggest and most controversial overhauls of the justice system in England and Wales in generations – promising the changes will significantly shrink the court backlog by 2029.
The Ministry of Justice is braced for a backlash from barristers and the judiciary as it presses ahead with the measures to tackle a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, which will create a proposed new judge-only division of the crown court to hear some cases.
Sackman said the “stakes are incredibly high” as she prepared to announce early next month that vast numbers of cases will now be heard by judges and magistrates rather than juries, a response to recommendations in a review by Sir Brian Leveson.
Speaking at Wood Green crown court, Sackman said victims of severe sexual assault were routinely told it could take four years for their cases to come to court.
However, the paper adds that changes to jury trials are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association, which has warned that ending the right would be an unacceptable price to pay and undermine what is a fundamental principle for British justice. They argue that the British public have a deep faith in the jury system and that changes risk a loss of trust.
Racial equality groups have also expressed concern at the reforms, and at the unrepresentative nature of the judiciary against juries:
Judicial diversity statistics show that ethnic minorities make up 12% of judges in England and Wales, while the representation of black judges has remained unchanged at 1% for a decade. Criminal justice charities have said they expect a reduction in jury trials to lead to more convictions and potential miscarriages of justice.
The Institute for Government’s Cassia Rowland said in a recent report the government and Leveson’s report had thus far failed to make the case for the changes and that many of the issues identified by Leveson would be solved by increased court productivity – fewer trials are being scheduled, but more are being cancelled at the last minute.
Labour's authoritarian tendencies are once more in evidence in these proposals. They would rather remove fundamental rights than put in place the investment that is needed to try and fix the system.
According to the paper, Sarah Sackman claims that drug dealers and career criminals are “laughing in the dock” knowing cases can take years to come to trial. She believes that that inaction will be a road to “chaos and ruin”:
Ministers will legislate to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in one of the biggest and most controversial overhauls of the justice system in England and Wales in generations – promising the changes will significantly shrink the court backlog by 2029.
The Ministry of Justice is braced for a backlash from barristers and the judiciary as it presses ahead with the measures to tackle a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases, which will create a proposed new judge-only division of the crown court to hear some cases.
Sackman said the “stakes are incredibly high” as she prepared to announce early next month that vast numbers of cases will now be heard by judges and magistrates rather than juries, a response to recommendations in a review by Sir Brian Leveson.
Speaking at Wood Green crown court, Sackman said victims of severe sexual assault were routinely told it could take four years for their cases to come to court.
However, the paper adds that changes to jury trials are opposed by 90% of the Criminal Bar Association, which has warned that ending the right would be an unacceptable price to pay and undermine what is a fundamental principle for British justice. They argue that the British public have a deep faith in the jury system and that changes risk a loss of trust.
Racial equality groups have also expressed concern at the reforms, and at the unrepresentative nature of the judiciary against juries:
Judicial diversity statistics show that ethnic minorities make up 12% of judges in England and Wales, while the representation of black judges has remained unchanged at 1% for a decade. Criminal justice charities have said they expect a reduction in jury trials to lead to more convictions and potential miscarriages of justice.
The Institute for Government’s Cassia Rowland said in a recent report the government and Leveson’s report had thus far failed to make the case for the changes and that many of the issues identified by Leveson would be solved by increased court productivity – fewer trials are being scheduled, but more are being cancelled at the last minute.
Labour's authoritarian tendencies are once more in evidence in these proposals. They would rather remove fundamental rights than put in place the investment that is needed to try and fix the system.
