Right to a Trial by Jury

For over two decades, I have stood in cramped cells and worn-out courtrooms, watching the state line up against the individual.

I have seen frightened teenagers, exhausted mothers, people who made bad choices and people who were wrongly accused. Throughout it all, one thing has kept our justice system feeling fair: when it really mattered, ordinary people had the final say.

Twelve strangers, chosen from the community, sitting together as a jury.

Now, this government is quietly pushing that safeguard towards the exit.

Last week, more than 100 lawyers warned the Ministry of Justice that the government’s plan to drastically cut jury trials is a serious mistake.

In simple terms, the proposal is this: keep juries only for the very worst crimes—like murder and rape—and move a huge range of other serious offences to be decided by a judge alone. At the same time, they want to give more power to magistrates’ courts, which we already know produce some of the most unequal outcomes.

And the reason given? The backlog of cases.

Yes, the backlog is real. Cases drag on for years, witnesses move away, memories fade, victims lose hope. But let’s be clear: juries didn’t create this backlog. It was created by political choices—court closures, crumbling buildings, cuts to legal aid, and fewer sitting days. Now, instead of fixing the problems, the government wants to remove one of the main pillars of our justice system.

When I talk to my clients about juries, even the most cynical ones understand. They might not trust judges or politicians, but they value the idea that “people like us” are in the room—a local builder, a teaching assistant, a retired nurse.

Take juries away from most crown court cases, and you don’t just change who decides—you change how justice feels. It stops being justice with the public and starts being justice done to the public.

What’s especially frustrating is that the current Deputy PM, in his 2017 review, showed that juries were one of the few parts of the system that treated minority ethnic defendants fairly. The big problems were elsewhere—in policing, charging, magistrates’ courts, and sentencing. Having seen clear proof that juries work, the government’s response seems to be: “Let’s cut them.”

This isn’t just a small tweak to speed things up. It’s a major constitutional shift. Once we accept that serious crimes—offences that can take your freedom, ruin your reputation, or separate you from your family—are decided by a single appointed state official rather than a group of your peers, we may never get that balance back.

We must be clear: anyone facing serious criminal charges must keep the right to choose a jury trial. Not just for the rare headline cases, but for the serious offences that affect real lives every day — assault, fraud, serious public order offences, and some sexual offences. The kinds of cases that fill court lists on a rainy Tuesday in Newcastle, Cardiff or Birmingham.

If the government really wants to fix the backlog, there are other ways to do it, including opening more courtrooms and repairing crumbling buildings so cases aren’t delayed by leaking ceilings or broken heating.