A former judge and prominent human rights barrister has condemned government plans to introduce jury-free trials in England and Wales, accusing Labour of “betraying” its own party’s values.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, founder of Doughty Street Chambers, counts among his former colleagues senior Labour figures including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, attorney general Richard Hermer, and deputy prime minister David Lammy.
While Mr Robertson describes the set as one of the leading human rights chambers in Britain, he suggested its alumni have “not trained… too well” if they now support curbing jury trials.
Speaking to The Standard, he said: “The jury system for centuries has been one of the great proudest boasts of Britain. We have 12 good men and women who decide on guilt or innocence. We don't have hardened judges.
“We have a jury system that can show mercy to people who deserve it, who don't have to convict if the law is not appropriate. So there's a lot to be said for juries [...] and at least half of jury trials will end if this Labour proposal goes through.”
Mr Robertson referred to the plans as a “betrayal of the values for which Labour purports to stand”, saying he hopes certain ministers are “thrown out” of their constituency parties for supporting it.
“It's offensive and objectionable that they should be turning their back on history, on a history that has favoured the poor, has favoured those who are badly done by, and getting rid of the jury is the basis for having mercy as part of our justice system,” Mr Robertson added.
The proposals, part of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, are intended to reduce the record Crown Court backlog, which currently exceeds 78,000 cases.
The Justice Secretary has warned that without intervention, the backlog could surge to 200,000 within a decade.
But Andrew Thomas, vice chair of the Criminal Bar Association, argues that the reforms will not meaningfully reduce delays, with analysis by the Institute for Government suggesting only a 1 to 2% improvement in court backlogs, which is barely noticeable in practice.
While the most serious cases, such as manslaughter or murder, would still be seen by juries, cases with a likely sentence of three years or less would be heard by a single Crown Court judge, without a jury.
Magistrates' sentencing powers would also be increased from the current 12 months' imprisonment to 18 months, allowing them to deal with a greater volume of cases.
Mr Thomas claims that juries are essential for fair justice, as they bring broader life experience and produce better decisions than magistrates or judges alone.
Moving serious cases, like burglary or sexual assault, to magistrates or judge-only trials could increase the risk of a miscarriage of justice, he claims, especially in complex cases.
Meanwhile, Mr Thomas noted a “perverse” system emerging, whereby defendants with no criminal record — those who may previously have been of good character — would be less likely to get a jury trial than repeat offenders because their sentence would be shorter.
“We're moving towards potentially a perfect storm of problems,” Mr Thomas told The Standard.
“The Government has set very ambitious targets to recruit more magistrates [...] we think what they're doing is moving the problem from one area, the crown court to another area, the magistrates court, where there's just as bad a problem with backlogs.
“There's 370,000 cases in the Magistrates Court backlog already. The perfect storm is that we will have inexperienced magistrates who've been recently recruited, magistrates who've been put forward through a speedy form of training.
“There's a shortage of legal advisors in the magistrates' court, and there's a recruitment drive for those. So we're to get newly qualified lawyers doing that role.
“And then the third problem is that in the magistrates court [...] it’s more difficult to qualify for legal aid to fund your representation. And the idea is that more complex cases will be allocated to the magistrates' court.
“So we've got all these things together, inexperienced magistrates, inexperienced legal advisors, lack of legal representation, but dealing with more complex cases where the outcome is going to be more serious. And that's a disaster waiting to happen.”
Listen to this episode of The Standard podcast on your chosen player
