𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

If something has, with some exceptions, worked well for centuries, has been one of our most notable exports and had also been adopted by almost every democracy on the planet, it would surely make sense to stick with it, wouldn’t it? Astonishingly, this is not the case for this government as last week it announced defendants will only be able to be opt for a jury trial where the offence carried a probable sentence of more than three years.

Yes, only a government with the extraordinary and utterly unjustified hubris of the current incumbents would seek to overthrow one of the most basic tenets of a law dating back to 1215! Namely, that any of us can choose to be tried by our peers. And the result? Around half of those facing their day of judgement will now no longer be able to rely on that basic principle of law.

There was an understandable – and valid – horrific reaction from almost every level of our legal profession over this suggestion which can be seen to, almost at a stroke, erode our defence against government authoritarianism. After all, if we can’t be judged by our peers, how can we expected to be protected by them?

Justice Secretary David Lammy’s lame defence for this wanton destruction was based on an, admittedly, an unacceptable backlog in cases waiting to be heard. Courtesy of Covid and the predictable level of incompetence, there are currently 78,000 cases waiting to go before our courts.

While it is, as Mr. Lammy pointed out last week, indefensible that a victim of a sexual crime this weekend is unlikely to see their case reach a court until 2028, this cannot be seen as a justification for the dismantling of the most cherished aspect of our judicial system.

How can anyone really argue it is preferable to allow one person, however legally qualified they might be, to sit in judgement of someone rather than a jury of 12?

Instead of this draconian devastation of where we are now, would it be so wrong to consider other options that would dramatically cut the backlog without robbing us of centuries’ of enviable heritage?

For a starter, why is about 20% of what is called “the court estate” not being utilised? Surely trying to open all our courts and get them up and running makes more sense.

As would moving courts to a six-day week and also away from a working day that, in too many instances, starts at nine, enjoys a protected, minimum one-hour, lunch break and clocks off at around four in the afternoon?

It is nothing short of shameful that any government would elect to go for this nuclear option and ditch jury trials rather than explore so many other possibilities.

But as this beleaguered administration faces challenges on multiple fronts, it is almost weirdly appropriate that “jury’s out” applies not just to its intent towards our much admired legal system, but also to its very existence.