Grave Security Concerns

There is no sunset clause because it is not about the backlog. Keir Starmer, David Lammy and Sarah Sackman simply consider it an abuse that “perpetrators”, meaning unconvicted defendants, should have the right to elect trial by jury. Being liable to higher sentences if convicted again, we old lags would still be able to have jury trials, whereas first timers facing personal and professional ruin would not. Defence lawyers may even find ways of having their clients charged with graver offences to ensure that they went before a jury. And since no trade unionist could vote to make anyone less safe at work, this, by Holly Bancroft, ought to be the end of the whole idea:

David Lammy’s plans to strip thousands of defendants of the right to a jury trial in favour of judge-only hearings could threaten judges’ security, the head of the judiciary has warned.

Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, said on Tuesday that she had “grave security concerns” about the controversial reforms, which would see juries in England and Wales replaced with a single judge in cases where a convicted defendant would be jailed for up to three years.

The reforms are being brought in to tackle the record case backlog in the criminal courts, which has led to some cases not being scheduled to start until 2030.

Baroness Carr told journalists: “My responsibility is to make it as plain as I can that I have grave security concerns if there are going to be judge-alone trials.

“It’s a very different environment to be working in, and judges usually sit in one main centre, so they are going in and out of one centre on a daily basis, rather than High Court judges who are sitting all around the country.”

Baroness Carr said she had “made the case very, very strongly” that judicial security needs to be considered by the government.

She added: “I have been assured that that has all been heard and understood, and the resources will be made available”.

When asked to clarify how judges might be put at risk, she said she was not too worried about intimidation of judges, adding: “I don’t want to go into too much detail about where my concerns lie. I think in the broadest of senses, I would say that they would centre at the moment on judges going to the same building every day.”

Baroness Carr pointed to Canada, which has a “gold-standard” judicial security unit. She said that “individual measures are being taken for individual judges where appropriate”, concluding: “It is a huge issue, and if you were to go and ask me the lowlights of the last year, security events and occasions would be one of them.”

She also highlighted the threat to judges online, saying: “The social media abuse has taken a nasty turn when it comes to judges now. (It) is increasingly racist and misogynistic social media abuse that is so difficult to control.”

Baroness Carr opened her annual press conference at the Royal Courts of Justice in London by paying tribute to Jeff Blair, a court bailiff, who was seriously injured at work in County Durham.

A man accused of murdering Mr Blair, who had previously worked as a police officer for 22 years, made his first appearance in court on Monday.

Justice secretary David Lammy’s reforms passed their first hurdle in Parliament last week after MPs voted to allow the Courts and Tribunal Bill. The bill passed with a majority of 101, and with 10 Labour MPs rebelling against the government.

Under the changes, magistrates’ powers will be increased so they can hand down sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, up from 12 months currently, so they will be able to deal with more cases.

The plans for judge-only trials would see judges reaching verdicts along on cases involving grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary, and organised crime.

In 2024, a man was jailed for three years after throwing a radiator at family court judge Patrick Perusko before pinning him down and punching him.

A year ago, the Lady Chief Justice publicly rebuked the prime minister and the leader of the opposition for their critical remarks in Parliament about a immigration judge's ruling, and said judicial security was at an “all-time high”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Lady Chief Justice is absolutely right to highlight how important it is to ensure judges are safe to carry out their duties. Our reforms mean serious cases will continue to be heard in front of a jury and we have robust measures in place - backed by increased investment - to protect judges and all court users.

“Victims are facing unacceptably long waits for justice after years of delays in our courts. That is why we are pressing ahead with our plans - alongside modernising it for the 21st century with record investment.”

As Geraldine McKelvie writes:

Thirty organisations representing victims of violence against women and girls (VAWG) have written to the justice secretary, David Lammy, urging him to drop plans to significantly reduce the number of jury trials.

The groups said that the proposals, which will affect court cases in England and Wales, will deepen mistrust in the justice system among victims and distract from measures designed to reduce offending. 

The signatories, which include Rights of Women, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Women for Refugee Women and various branches of Women’s Aid, added that they were “deeply concerned that the curtailment of jury trials risks unfair outcomes that undermine justice for everyone”.

The letter, which has also been signed by Fiona Rutherford, the chief executive of the law reform charity Justice, said those working against violence were particularly concerned for women and girls who were “unjustly criminalised” as a result of their abuse, some of whom have faced trial themselves. 

Another signatory, the Centre for Women’s Justice, has long campaigned on the issue, saying that about 70% of women in prison or under probation supervision are known to be victims of domestic abuse. It argues that some domestic abuse victims charged with criminal offences have acted under duress or in self-defence.

The controversial courts and tribunals bill was introduced in an attempt to tackle a backlog of cases in crown courts, which now stands at 80,000. The government claims this could rise to 200,000 by 2035 if action is not taken.

If the bill becomes law, jury trials would be scrapped for cases likely to carry a custodial sentence of fewer than three years. Magistrates would be granted increased sentencing powers and lone judges could hear some crown court cases.

The proposed changes would affect what are known as “either way” offences, removing the right of some defendants to opt for their case to be heard by a jury in a crown court rather than by a magistrate.

The plight of rape and sexual assault victims has frequently been used as an argument in favour of new legislation. More than 13,000 are waiting for their cases to be heard and some face delays of several years.

However, the organisations have raised a number of concerns about the bill, which survived a vote in the Commons last week. It passed with a majority of 101, although 10 Labour MPs rebelled and many more abstained.

The letter says: “VAWG organisations have long called for radical action to address the harms the criminal justice system causes for survivors, including the crown court backlog.

“However, to position the rights and interests of survivors as directly opposed to those of defendants oversimplifies the reality of how our criminal justice system treats women and survivors on all sides of our adversarial model.

“This includes a failure to recognise that women who are survivors of violence are routinely and unjustly criminalised, particularly when they are members of minoritised communities.

“We are deeply concerned that the curtailment of jury trials risks unfair outcomes that undermine justice for everyone.

“For centuries, trial by one’s peers has acted as a democratic safeguard, functioning as a vital connection between society and the law, so that justice is not determined by a single class or authority alone.”

During a debate on the proposed legislation, the Labour MP Charlotte Nichols accused the government of using rape victims as a “cudgel” to drive through changes to the justice system that may not directly benefit them. 

In her speech, Nichols revealed she waited 1,088 days for her rape case to come to trial. Although she said the defendant was acquitted in a criminal court, she added that he was later ordered to pay her compensation as part of a civil case.

However, another Labour MP, Natalie Fleet, who has spoken about being groomed and raped as a teenager, said: “You know what’s worse than being raped? Facing years of waiting to see if people believe you.”

In their letter, the organisations say that any decision to reduce the number of jury trials risks “diverting resources and attention away from the substantive reform needed to address the complex, underlying causes of VAWG”.

They also raised the issue of diversity, saying that only 36% of circuit judges who sit in crown court cases are women, and 10% are from ethnic minorities.

They added that research carried out by Lammy in 2017 suggested juries did not generally discriminate against defendants on the grounds of ethnicity. However, they also cited a separate study by academic Kitty Lymperopoulou, which indicated that lone judges are more likely to give jail sentences to those from black, Asian and mixed ethnicity groups.

The letter said: “Fewer than half of victims believe they can get justice. We also know that confidence is lowest among minoritised communities … In judge-only decisions, there is increased potential for individual biases to influence the verdict.

“Conversely, the involvement of 12 randomly selected people brings a wider range of lived experiences, insights, and perspectives into the decision-making process, strengthening the fairness and balance of deliberations.

“Requiring a unanimous verdict means that every juror’s viewpoint must be considered, ensuring that the final decision reflects collective deliberation rather than relying on a single viewpoint.

“We know that black people, older people and women elect for trial at the crown court at higher rates than other groups. The protections of a jury trial are therefore central to the integrity of the system and are critical for victims, particularly women and those from minoritised groups, who are subject to discriminatory treatment and are already likely to mistrust the system.”

And as the mighty Michael Mansfield KC writes:

How many Labour policy U-turns does it take to form a complete circle? How many Labour policy complete circles does it take to form a black hole? A black hole in which public interest and party loyalty is crushed past the point of no return.

The reversing of fundamental decisions in the blink of an eye has dire consequences for the integrity of both government and democracy. The latest, quite breathtaking example being the staggering decision to allow the United States to use British airbases for an illegal war on Iran.

At least we still have juries, I hear you say? Well, only just. Juries, once held in high esteem by so-called political reformers, are the latest core democratic mainstay to be discarded for bogus and opportunistic reasons by this arbitrary and whimsical form of cabinet governance.

The English criminal jury system was developed and honed over the course of eight centuries. It has become the envy of the world as one of the fairest ways to determine guilt or innocence. A jury of 12 randomly chosen individuals has long been regarded as a vital bulwark against the excesses of government, the threats posed to basic human rights by oppressive legislation and, of course, arbitrary governance. It provides a constitutional and democratic safeguard unlike any other.

These principles were not questioned during the current debate over the Labour government’s proposals to cut the number of jury trials by half. This move is not because juries are unfit for purpose or inherently unfair. Rather it is the opposite: juries are conscientious and return verdicts that are inconvenient and challenge government, thereby reflecting a sense of justice and fairness.

Take public order and the issue of free speech. This government and its Tory predecessors have been frantically passing a plethora of laws curtailing rights to protest, assemble, march, rally and display placards defending juries. Yet, at the same time, those very juries are displaying an honourable record of acquitting large numbers charged with such offences. 

Indeed, this is exactly what is at the heart of the much-cited 1670 example of Mr Bushell, who is commemorated by a plaque discreetly displayed on the ground floor of the Old Bailey. He and his fellow jurors were trying two Quakers (William Penn and William Mead) charged with that era’s equivalent public order offence, “unlawful assembly”. They had contravened the Conventicle Act, which banned nonconformist religious gatherings. The jury was cajoled by the judge to convict, but steadfastly refused to do so despite being imprisoned without basic necessities.

The jury system is a key to maintaining public faith and confidence in how justice is dispensed. Retention of jury trials has remained a central tenet for proponents of judicial reform until recently, when there was a sudden seismic shift against juries – one that was conspicuously absent from the 2024 Labour manifesto.

Take David Lammy, the deputy prime minister, secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor. He was very much against jury abolition – so much so that on 20 June 2020, he tweeted: “Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. The government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe … You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.” Lammy is now proposing the exact opposite, with judge-only trials for offences likely to attract a sentence of less than three years. Such offences are not necessarily minor and can include theft, fraud, wounding and burglary. It’s not just about sentences but defendants’ reputations.

There is a very real risk of an increase in miscarriages of justice where trials are presided over by a cynical case-hardened judiciary without the safeguard of a diverse jury. In addition to which, judges who sit alone will be burdened with the onerous task of compiling a reasoned judgment setting out the evidence, the law, their findings and a final verdict. This will inevitably add a considerable period of delay at the end of a trial.

So what conceivable, legitimate basis can there be for such a volte-face? The purported justification is the shocking criminal court backlog of more than 80,000 cases, which is projected to rise to 100,000 by 2028. No evidence or causal link has been produced to support the government’s reasoning at any stage, up to and including the recent debate on the second reading of the courts and tribunal bill. The public, and especially the victims of crime, are being seriously misled.

The Institute for Government has examined the government’s proposals in meticulous detail and concludes that any difference to the backlog will be uncertain. Brian Leveson, who conducted the recent independent review of the criminal justice system, expressed similar doubts in the overview to his report, and even went so far as to state: “The most significant cause [of the crisis] is chronic underfunding at every step.”

There has been a substantial lack of investment over decades in the fabric of criminal justice: the buildings, staffing, judicial support and legal aid provisions. In major city centres, courts have stood empty as there has been a cap on judges’ sitting hours.

This is not the first time there have been attempts to clip the wings of juries. At one point it was believed that only members of the propertied classes were suitable for jury service. More recently, there have been calls for some form of intellectual qualification for jury members in particularly complex cases. There is also the snobbish legal assumption that ordinary citizens are incapable of concentrating for protracted periods.

These misconceptions were emphatically dispelled by the jury in the Hillsborough inquests. They sat for the best part of two years, between March 2014 and April 2016. They returned 14 detailed, reasoned narrative findings (formerly known as verdicts) which constituted a resounding rejection of the Thatcher government’s position of blaming the fans.

A sacred principle is being sacrificed and scapegoated to falsely explain systemic failure. The prime minister knows this. In 1992, he wrote: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”