{"id":5793,"date":"2026-10-07T13:47:07","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T13:47:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/?p=5793"},"modified":"2026-10-07T13:47:09","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T13:47:09","slug":"opinion-the-case-against-the-jury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/?p=5793","title":{"rendered":"Opinion: The Case Against the Jury"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n \t<\/i> Read Time:<\/span>6 Minute, 6 Second <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n

This article comes at a time in which many rejoice at the government’s recent decision<\/a> to reverse plans to scrap some jury trails, where judges (of some complexion) would have made the sole decision on cases with a sentence of less than three years. This would have removed a defendant’s right to choose between being tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown court in offences deemed ‘either-way’. This sentiment comes from a popular public belief that jury-trails are an important bulwark against an oppressive and tyrannical legal system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The justifications the government gave for their plans were patently absurd. These measures were not introduced out of principle, but on it’s supposed practiality for reducing case backlog. The legal system has long suffered from an extensive backlog<\/a>, currently standing at 78,000<\/a> cases pending in the Crown court, with the average case taking a year to reach court. This is easily attributable to historic underfunding, archaic systems, legal aid cuts, old technology, and many other factors. But jury trails<\/a> are not one of them. Despite the government’s insistence that limiting jury trails would save 20%<\/a> of court time, studies have shown that at best it would save 2.5%. This is hardly enough to restrict what is seen as an enormous public good, to a minority of cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, I do believe that there is a strong case for questioning jury trails on principle. Jury trails are venerated by the public, politicians and legal professionals alike. As Penny Derbyshire<\/a> says, ‘It seems to attract the most praise and least theoretical analysis’. It’s proponents seem to outnumber oppennts by a hundered to one, and when the Bill of Rights was proposed, 89%<\/a> of the British population supported jury trails as the primary right that should be enshrined in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would dare say that most of this public sentiment is inherited rather than reasoned. Most start from the ancient right to a trail by jury which they believe originated from the Magna Carta. It didn’t. The Magna Carta had little constitutional significance and much of it has been later repealed. Much of the law it is purported to have established already existed and it’s main focus was feudal rights. It certainly did not establish verdict by juries. Those came around in the course of the thirteenth century, in a very different form to what we have now. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The custom of jury trails is upheld on analysis because a trail decided by peers is seen as a fairer and more democratic way to decide a person”s guilt. It symbolises the idea that coercive state power is controlled by the collective beliefs and reasoning of the community. It is also favoured as it offers a diversity of opinions when deciding a case, thus seen as delivering safer justice. Jurors are selected at random from those on the electoral register, meaning juries supposedly represent the ethnic and cultural diversity of the nation, reducing any bias. Although there is a significant case to day they often don’t. Juries have shown in the evidence to be less biased. The UCL Jury project<\/a> showed that minority ethnic defendents are not morelikely than White defendants to be convicted. But that is not od any importance if the decisions they are making are wrong. The primary issue with jury trails is that jurors are, after all, amateurs. They are not legal professionals. It has therefore always confused me as to why juries are regarded as the gold standard for decison-making in the UK if jurors have no experience in ever interpretating or applying law. I can understand arguments that jury trails form a part of our democratic and constitutional principles, but surely not because of it’s accuracy. The issues that they will be dealing with in cases necessitating a jury will inevitably be both factually and legaly complex as only the most serious crimes appear before a jury. If we are being pessimistic, are all members of the public capable of this task? Being in court all day and lestening to oral submissions and testimony is a tiring process, how can we be sure that every jury member is properly informed when they come to decide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, a Crown court judge is an experienced legal professional. In the UK, they will have had to have 15 years of experience practising as either a barrister or solicitor. They are familar with consuming vast amounts of information, making decisions, and applying an analytical, unbiased lens to each case, as any juror would have to do. Whether they actually do this is a seperate question, but that is their job. They are trusted to do this in all civil trials. Civil juries are long gone. But why not criminal juries? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, the vast majority of criminal cases (90%<\/a>) go to magistrate courts in summary trails that don’t involve a jury. If jury trails are the gold standard, are we saying that we are letting 90% of justice undergo sub-par justice. Or is it more an expression of the fact that we do, to some degree, trust single judge decisions with jury trials acting more as a symbol of the fairness of justice with members of the public actively involved in the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is\u00a0also a case to say that\u00a0having judge trials\u00a0is\u00a0fairer. They\u00a0are\u00a0required to\u00a0produce\u00a0a\u00a0judgement\u00a0setting out their reasoning for the\u00a0decision.\u00a0This means that\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0parties\u00a0have the chance to appeal\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0reasoning,\u00a0interpretation of the law,\u00a0or fact-finding by\u00a0the judge they\u00a0find\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0incorrect.\u00a0There is no such thing with\u00a0jury trials.A\u00a0jury\u2019s verdict is\u00a0essentially\u00a0gospel\u00a0and\u00a0very hard\u00a0to\u00a0overturn<\/a>\u00a0on appeal unless\u00a0the\u00a0Justice\u00a0in the\u00a0Court of\u00a0Appeal\u00a0finds the\u00a0decision\u00a0so against the weight of evidence\u00a0that it would be\u00a0unconscionable\u00a0to\u00a0let the\u00a0verdict stand. This happens rarely.\u00a0\u00a0Jurors\u00a0are not required to\u00a0produce a judgment or reasons for their\u00a0decision,\u00a0and their deliberation\u00a0is done in secrecy, even from the\u00a0presiding\u00a0judge.\u00a0Therefore, we have no idea if\u00a0jurors applied\u00a0the law\u00a0correctly,\u00a0correctly\u00a0used evidence according\u00a0to\u00a0standards,\u00a0or in the end\u00a0gave the\u00a0right decision.\u00a0And there is not really a way to challenge them.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore,\u00a0jurors might\u00a0base their decision\u00a0on sympathy or\u00a0hostility towards\u00a0other trial\u00a0participants; such as the defendants themselves, or the counsel\u00a0and\u00a0witnesses.\u00a0In other instances,\u00a0jurors might throw\u00a0aside the\u00a0law entirely\u00a0and apply\u00a0their\u00a0own equity\u00a0according to their\u00a0belief of\u00a0what the law should be\u00a0and\u00a0not what it is.\u00a0In this\u00a0case, jurors would\u00a0almost be\u00a0acting as a\u00a0mini-parliament.\u00a0Bending\u00a0the\u00a0law without breaking it.\u00a0As\u00a0Penny\u00a0Derbyshire<\/a> exclaims, \u2018What business have the jury to be rewriting the law?\u2019.\u00a0It could\u00a0mean\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0juries, at\u00a0its worst,\u00a0we have an\u00a0unaccountable\u00a0legislator,\u00a0making irrational decisions\u00a0that discard\u00a0established\u00a0law\u00a0entirely\u00a0in\u00a0an\u00a0otherwise highly rational legal system.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a complex argument, that can easily be discussed for a indefinite amount of time.\u00a0There are\u00a0more\u00a0arguments\u00a0for both sides, but\u00a0hopefully\u00a0this article acts a\u00a0reminder of that \u2013 there are two sides.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image: John Morgan,\u00a0The Jury<\/em>\u00a0(1861), Discover Bucks Museum.\u00a0Public Domain (CC0\/Public Domain Mark 1.0).<\/strong>\u00a0Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edited by Storm Carr-Barney <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n \n
\n \n \"Happy\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Happy <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Sad\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Sad <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Excited\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Excited <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Sleepy\"\n <\/a>\n
\n Sleepy <\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n \n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Angry\"\n <\/a>\n
Angry<\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \"Surprise\"\n <\/a>\n
Surprise<\/div>\n
\n 0<\/span>\n 0<\/span> %<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article comes at a time in which many rejoice at the government’s recent decision to reverse plans to scrap some jury trails, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":5797,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[228,193],"tags":[588,705,192],"class_list":["post-5793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-justice","category-opinion","tag-latest","tag-law","tag-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5793","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5793"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5793\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5803,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5793\/revisions\/5803"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thewitnessexeter.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}