We must protect jury trials. They are fundamental to democracy

The right of an individual to be punished only as a result of “the lawful judgment of his equals” was enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215. Yes, this right only extended to a certain group of men, but it laid the foundation of a principle which is now fundamental to the justice system of England and Wales. A recent attorney general, Dominic Grieve, described it as “deeply ingrained in our national DNA”. He was right, and the Government is at risk of forgetting this.

A jury trial gives people the final say on the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens. It entrusts the public with life-changing decisions, rather than merely leaving it in the hands of lawyers. This is a civic duty – developed over centuries – which ensures fairness and representation in the criminal justice system and forms part of the bedrock of our democracy.

But as the nation braces itself for the next stage of the coronavirus crisis, the right to a jury trial is under threat. Last week, the Lord Chief Justice said that limiting the availability of jury trials for certain offences, if court delays become unmanageable, is “worthy of consideration by policymakers”.

The problems with the Government doing this are four-fold. First, it is not clear whether scrapping jury trials for certain offences is necessary to facilitate social distancing. The court estate has not been used at full capacity for years and, with many public buildings sitting empty, there are more creative ways to allow jury trials to continue safely. For months, Labour has been calling on the Government to co-opt empty public buildings, including university lecture halls and leisure centres, to be used as temporary courts.

Secondly, there is a weight of evidence showing that jury trials produce fairer results. Mathematician Jeff

Suzuki has demonstrated that smaller juries are more likely to convict a defendant who is “less certain” to be guilty than large juries. As set out in Condorcet’s jury theorem, the larger the jury the more likely it is to make the “correct” judgment. This could be for several reasons, including the fact that larger groups can balance out individual prejudices. As the Black Lives Matter movement makes its voice heard, it would be wrong to ignore the reality of unconscious bias in our justice system.

Third, there is an inevitable risk that once jury trials are suspended for certain crimes, they will never come back. Once the precedent has been set that those accused of assault, theft or burglary have no right to demand a jury trial, it will be tempting for the Government to maintain the new provisions.

Finally, the problem of delays in criminal trials existed long before the pandemic. The crown court backlog stood at 37,000 cases before the crisis, and the Government did not consider the restriction of the right to a jury trial. The backlog is now around 41,000 and the prospect is being raised. The backlog is chiefly the result of a decade of cuts. If the Government is serious about reducing the backlog, it should commit to ending its court closure programme and providing the investment to increase court sitting days when the crisis is eventually over.

As the Opposition, Labour does not underestimate the huge challenges the justice system faces due to the pandemic. Our aim has been to work constructively with the Government. But constructive opposition does not mean turning a blind eye to mistakes that could cause permanent damage. Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.