2
0
As a Law undergraduate hoping to train as a criminal barrister, I have always been taught to cherish the jury system, it is both the bedrock of public participation in justice and a vital safeguard of liberty.
So when Justice Secretary David Lammy announced today sweeping changes to how criminal trials will be conducted in England and Wales, I, among many current and prospective professionals, cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of unease.
Under the new proposals, many “either-way” offences (those for which a defendant could currently elect a jury trial) likely to result in three years or less imprisonment will no longer be tried before a jury. Instead, they’ll be dealt with by a single judge in what the Government calls “swift courts.”
Proponents argue this is a necessary response to a “courts emergency.” The backlog in Crown Courts reportedly stands over 78,000 cases, with delays stretching years into the future. Lammy warned that without reform, the backlog could exceed 100,000 by 2028. He added that the changes, along with increased investment in victim and witness support, aim to deliver “swift and fair justice” for victims.
Yet, as someone who dreams of standing in court defending the most vulnerable, I can’t help but wonder whether speed is worth sacrificing one of the foundations of British criminal justice: the jury.
Why Jury Service Matters
Jury service is civic duty at its most powerful
For many citizens, jury duty is their first, and often only, real encounter with the justice system. It’s not just a procedural formality; it’s an exercise in democracy. Ordinary people, neighbours, co-workers, parents, serve as jurors. That participation reminds us that justice does not belong solely to representatives, Judges, or the state. It belongs to society as a whole.
I was drawn to the Law in part because of that very ideal; that the fate of someone’s liberty should not rest solely in the hands of professionals, but be subject to the judgment of the community. Removing juries from large swathes of cases diminishes that communal involvement.
Juries build public trust in verdicts & the System
When verdicts are delivered by lay people, defendants, and society, feel the decision is more legitimate and less remote. For many people who have never studied Law, a jury verdict feels comprehensible: it is peers, not lawyers or career judges.
If more cases become judge-only, that sense of public ownership risks eroding. Why take part in a system that increasingly excludes the public? Jury service isn’t optional citizenship: it’s one of the greatest civic duties, sometimes the only moment when the public directly engages with justice.
Jury trials serve as a safeguard for fairness — especially for the vulnerable or marginalised
Some of the most critical trials involve defendants from minority or disadvantaged backgrounds, people for whom institutional bias and mistrust run deep. A jury brings a diversity of perspectives. It acts as a check against state overreach or unconscious bias.
Critics of Lammy’s plan warn that judge-only trials might increase the risk of miscarriages of justice, especially in cases where evidence is ambiguous or where subtle cultural/contextual factors matter.
What Lammy’s Reforms Aim to Gain & What They Risk Losing
Supporters of today’s reforms argue the changes are long overdue. They point to crushing case backlogs that leave victims waiting years, and defendants languishing on remand. A faster, judge-led system could, theoretically, clear cases faster, deliver swifter justice to victims, and relieve a strained court system.
But the price may be a fundamental shift in how justice is administered. Moving away from citizen-based verdicts risks undermining core democratic principles. Many respected voices in the legal community have already warned that these reforms could damage public confidence in the judiciary, reduce transparency, and disproportionately affect minority or disadvantaged defendants.
Why We Should Cling to Jury Service, Even in Crisis
Courts are overwhelmed. Victims suffering because of delays should concern all of us who care about fairness. But I also believe that stripping away jury trials from a wide class of offences does not solve the root problems, under-resourcing, understaffing, and decades of neglect for the justice system.
If we care about the rule of law, if we care about public participation, if we care about fairness, we should defend the tradition of jury service. Rather than turn to judge-only trials as the default, the state should invest in: more judges, more courtrooms, more support for victims and witnesses, and a justice system fit for a modern society without sacrificing the centuries-old right to be judged by one’s peers.
As I prepare to apply for bar training, I hope that whichever cases I argue, whether serious or “lesser” offences, the defendant, and society, will still have the right to a jury. Because jury service is not just a procedural relic. It is a civic duty, a connection to justice, and for many, our only encounter with the judiciary.
Average Rating