The fundamental right to be judged by one's peers, a cornerstone of English and Welsh law for centuries, faces its most significant threat in modern history. Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy has proposed sweeping reforms that would see jury trials reserved almost exclusively for charges of rape and murder.
A Radical Solution to the Court Backlog
According to a leaked memorandum from the Ministry of Justice, defendants in England and Wales would only have an automatic right to a jury trial for allegations of rape, murder, manslaughter, or other offences passing a strict public interest test. For all other crimes, including complex fraud and financial offences, a judge sitting alone would determine guilt or innocence.
This represents a dramatic narrowing of current rights. At present, anyone charged with an offence carrying a potential prison sentence of more than six months is entitled to a trial by jury. The proposal goes further than even the contentious recommendations from Sir Brian Leveson's recent review of the criminal courts.
The government's stated motivation is the crippling backlog in the justice system. Over 78,000 cases are currently waiting in Crown Courts, a number that continues to grow. Lammy's solution, however, has been condemned as an attempt to solve a chronic resource shortage by dismantling a foundational legal principle, rather than by properly funding the courts.
Magna Carta and "Lawful Judgement of Peers"
Critics argue the plan strikes at the heart of a legal tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. Clause 29 of the 1297 version of the charter states: "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned... nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
This clause is seen as the bedrock of the jury system, though the concept of peer judgement predates even 1215, with origins traceable to the Wantage Code of around AD 997. Cabinet Office Minister Darren Jones controversially suggested that Magna Carta supports the MoJ's case, citing its promise not to deny or defer justice. Legal historians have roundly rejected this interpretation, arguing it cannot override the explicit right to judgement by one's peers.
While the right to a jury has been limited before—for example, to prevent jury-tampering—these exceptions have been rare. Lammy's proposal, aimed at clearing a five-figure backlog, would make judge-only trials the norm for a vast swathe of criminal cases.
A "Topsy-Turvy" Policy and a Stunning U-Turn
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, dismissed the logic of the reform. "Juries are not the cause of the backlog," she argued. "The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years." She likened the policy to the RAF scrapping fighter jets to reduce its equipment budget—abolishing the need for resources rather than meeting it.
The most striking criticism, however, comes from Lammy's own past words. In 2020, as Shadow Justice Secretary, he stated: "A jury trial gives people the final say on the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens. It entrusts the public to make life-changing decisions, rather than merely leaving it in the hands of lawyers... and forms part of the bedrock of our democracy."
This profound U-turn has not gone unnoticed. Commentators accuse the Justice Secretary, a barrister by profession, of sacrificing a thousand-year-old democratic safeguard for administrative convenience. In a system where six other cabinet ministers also have legal backgrounds, the move risks being seen as the legal profession consolidating its power over justice.
The proposal promises a fierce constitutional battle. It pits the pragmatic demands of a failing court system against a legal tradition that binds society together through the judgement of ordinary citizens. As one critic concluded, a politician who disregards this to make the numbers tally may be a fool, but a lawyer who does the same is a knave.
