After weeks of speculation, the UK government’s justice secretary, David Lammy, has announced plans that will take thousands of trials in England and Wales away from the jury system, to be heard instead by judges and magistrates. How did we reach this point and what has been the reaction to the proposed changes?
Does the jury system need changing?
The argument of the government and the retired judge Brian Leveson, who was commissioned to come up with proposals to reform the justice system, is that a record backlog in the courts is failing victims, witnesses and defendants.
There are currently almost 80,000 cases waiting to be completed in the crown courts and Lammy has warned that the figure will rise to more than 100,000 without radical reform. It is a common refrain that justice delayed is justice denied, and the waiting times have led to victims and witnesses increasingly deciding not to participate in trials. The quality of evidence they give can also be affected.
Some people charged with serious crimes are being given trial dates in 2029 or 2030. In the meantime, they could be held in jail awaiting trial, only to be later acquitted.
Particular concerns have been raised in relation to rape cases, given the government’s plans to tackle violence against women and girls.
What has Lammy announced?
The lord chancellor told MPs that “swift courts” will mean cases with a likely sentence of three years or less will be heard by a judge alone.
Courts will also have the power to decide where more cases are heard. This will impact on “either way” offences, those where the defendant can currently decide whether they will be tried by a jury or magistrates.
There will be guaranteed jury trials for almost all indictable offences (the most serious offences which currently must be heard by a jury), including rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offences.
Under the plans, judge-only trials will be introduced for particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial charges. There have long been concerns about the burden – both in duration and complexity – such cases can place on jurors.
Magistrates will be given the power to hand down sentences of up to 18 months, up from the current 12 months (they were only increased from six months a year ago), potentially going up to two years if needed.
How do the plans compare with what was expected?
Lammy told MPs that he was following the recommendations set out by Leveson in his report, which was published in July. However, last week it emerged that a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) document had been circulated suggesting the scrapping of jury trials for all except the most serious crimes such as rape, murder and manslaughter, causing consternation among senior lawyers.
The plans announced on Tuesday do not go as far as the internal MoJ document and some suspect that this more extreme version of the changes may have been deliberately leaked to make the actual proposals look more palatable in comparison.
Why is restriction of jury trials so controversial?
Many see jury trials as a cherished principle of the the justice system in England and Wales, dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215, which referred to the right to be tried by one’s peers, although the modern jury system did not emerge until much later.
The lack of diversity among magistrates and in particular judges, who tend to be white and privately educated, is a concern, with Lammy himself arguing in his 2017 review commissioned by David Cameron that juries “act as a filter for prejudice” and others warning that his proposals will increase miscarriages of justice.
Juries have in the past exercised the right to acquit people based on their conscience, despite there being no question of their having carried out the actions for which they were tried, but the number of cases in which this will be possible will be reduced under the changes.
Asian youth groups who fought back against racists, climate campaigners and anti-war protesters are among those who have been cleared by juries historically when it is unlikely a judge or magistrate would have reached the same verdict.
Another argument against the changes is that juries are not the cause of the backlog and the real problem is years of underfunding.
Lammy said judge trials were estimated to take 20% less time than a jury trial but anyone who has attended a criminal trial will appreciate that there are a lot of different factors that cause delays across different parts of the justice system. These include the increasing complexity of the law and digital evidence, prisoners held in prison awaiting trial being transported late to court, delays in probation and social worker reports before sentencing, crumbling courts, lack of availability of barristers and judges and defendants representing themselves because of cuts to legal aid.
