12 hours ago
6
This week the justice secretary, David Lammy, announced sweeping changes to the criminal justice system that will significantly reduce the number of jury trials in England and Wales. Under the radical plans, jury trials will be reserved for cases in “indictable-only” offences such as murder or rape, and “either-way” offences (those where the defendant can currently decide whether they will be tried by a jury or magistrates), with a likely sentence of more than three years in prison.
While Lammy backed down on plans to remove jury trials for all cases involving a maximum jail term of five years, the move has led to an outcry from MPs, lawyers and campaigners. The Guardian spoke to a range of people who have seen juries’ work close up about their experiences and the proposals.
The defendant
Abrar Javid, one of the Rotherham 12 who fought with far-right extremists after attending an anti-racism protest in Rotherham and were cleared of violent disorder in 2016
Abrar Javid remembers seeing the jury who would try him and the other men of Pakistani heritage who had been arrested and charged with violent disorder after a clash with Britain First demonstrators.
High-profile grooming gang trials had brought infamy to Rotherham and a spotlight on its British Pakistani community. Britain First had organised 14 protests in the town over a year. In August 2015, Mushin Ahmed, 81, was murdered in a racist attack.
“As defendants, we were really concerned,” Javid says. “We thought we would be up against a jury with certain stereotypes about Pakistani men from Rotherham, even though we had absolutely nothing to do with the grooming scandal. We thought it was hook, line and sinker, we were done for. Slam dunk.”
But over a six-week trial the all-white jury listened carefully, he noticed. “They seemed quite a good mix of young, old, men, women,” he says. Finally, all 10 men who were on trial were found not guilty. Two men who had pleaded guilty applied to change their plea and the prosecution offered no evidence against them.
“Before my trial I thought negatively of the criminal justice system,” Javid says. “But my trial restored my faith that there’s a system that, while not perfect, is an opportunity still to be heard fairly. And I think having jury members is an essential and fundamental part of that system.”
The victim
Dorothy* gave evidence against her ex-partner in a magistrates court where he was facing a charge of coercive control
Dorothy* was relieved when her ex-partner, who was facing an either-way charge of coercive control, elected to have his case heard in front of a magistrate instead of electing to have a jury trial.
“I thought it would be a judge, so it would be someone who would understand the law and the nuances of coercive control and domestic abuse,” she says. “I thought that would be better than standing in front of 12 strangers who have no idea.”
But the magistrate found her ex-partner not guilty, noting that Dorothy had waited eight months before reporting the crime and knew what to say because she had spoken to other victims of domestic abuse.
“I wonder if there was a jury there who had actually delved into it, the fact that this man was so much older than me, that there’s a clear pattern of abuse, it would have been different,” she says.
Looking at the Lammy proposals, Dorothy thinks the ideal would be two or three judges sitting in specialist violence against women and girls courts for cases like hers. But with the proposal of scrapping jury trials for most either-way cases (although they will still be used for rape trials), she worries about a lack of scrutiny.
“We need to make sure that transcripts are readily and freely available in trials,” she says. “And with more going to magistrates courts, they have to start recording there.”
The barrister
Keir Monteith KC, barrister at Garden Court chambers, lecturer in law at the University of Manchester
Keir Monteith, a KC specialising in criminal law, has worked in the criminal justice system for more than 30 years and says he has been consistently impressed with the quality and diligence of the juries he has encountered. “I have witnessed juries working conscientiously and efficiently to determine the correct verdicts in sensitive, difficult and complex cases,” he says.
Calling the proposed changes “unconstitutional, unworkable and unfair”, he urges Lammy to make a swift U-turn. “Take away trial by jury and you move towards an authoritarian state where justice is in the hands of the establishment and not the people,” he says.
Monteith met Lammy in January 2023 to talk about the University of Manchester report he co-authored on racial bias and the bench, and he says Lammy agreed with the findings that there was evidence of institutional racism in the justice system presided over by judges.
“His own review states there is racism in the justice system,” Monteith says. “It is no surprise that only 1% of judges are Black and there are still no Black judges in the court of appeal or the supreme court. Lammy’s 180-degree U-turn to replace juries with judges is not only unconstitutional and politically naive but it will create further unfairness and miscarriages of justice for Black and minority ethnic defendants.”
The former chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales and former chair of the Criminal Bar Association
Mark Fenhalls KC, 23 Essex Street chambers
Mark Fenhalls’ support of juries is unequivocal. “The jury system is a profoundly important process engaging the public in critical decisions that affect the liberty of others. No one has ever presented any convincing evidence that juries do not understand the issues they are resolving even in the most complex of frauds,” he says.
As well as believing that jury trials are important for “democracy, social engagement, and participation in society, and not disenfranchising people”, Fenhalls also argues that limiting them would do nothing to address the backlog.
“Putting aside all the emotion and rhetoric of this debate, the suggestions leaked and floated by the government will not work,” he says. “The answer lies not in shiny legislation beloved of legislators but in more prosaic efficiency measures that have succeeded in some parts of the country where there is almost no backlog at all.”
The retired judge
Chris Kinch was the resident judge at Woolwich crown court from 2013 to 2024 and sat on the court of appeal
Since being called to the bar in 1976, Chris Kinch has witnessed the workings of many juries. “I’m a huge believer in jury trials and I get very upset when people talk about juries not understanding evidence,” he says. “In the cases I’ve tried, juries really knuckle down to it.”
During his career he says there have been many occasions when a barrister has made a statement as fact only for it to be rightly questioned by a juror pointing to evidence heard in the court. “They draw everybody’s attention to a hole in the argument, they pay attention and they pick things up.”
Kinch also argues that by removing juries in many trials, judges would be put under a much heavier burden, pointing to an increase in hostility towards the judiciary. “I worry this could go very badly wrong,” he says. “It’s a privilege to manage juries and run that part of the system, and I am very sorry to see it diminished.”
The juror
Adam*, sat in a London trial
Adam*, who was a juror in a serious sexual abuse trial in London, was surprised to find himself changed by the experience. “There is an actual realisation that you are hands on making a difference and actually having an impact on the way the justice system is delivered,” he says.
He adds that in his jury, some jurors appeared to have come to the case with preconceived ideas, or he felt that their life experience coloured their view of the case, but the diversity of opinion and experience in the jury meant they were able to deliver what he thought was a fair verdict.
“I was impressed that the system allows a variety of people coming from all walks of life and I think everyone took it seriously,” he says.
Reflecting on the proposals put forward by Lammy this week, Adam says he knows the courts system is facing a massive backlog but he does not think trials should be considered a luxury.
“If I ever were to be on the other side, if I ever were put on trial, I would like to be tried by a jury of my peers,” he says.
