The British public is soon to face a suite of “big ideas” purported to fix the criminal justice system, which is currently in a dire state. The statistics paint a grim picture: a Crown Court backlog exceeding 73,000 cases, trials scheduled as far into the future as 2028, and victims and witnesses losing faith due to unbearable delays.
Among these proposals, one particularly contentious idea has emerged—replacing juries in certain mid-level trials with a panel comprising a judge and two magistrates. Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, has resurfaced this concept, advocating to remove a defendant’s right to elect a Crown Court jury trial. It’s an idea he first attempted to implement 25 years ago, only to face fierce opposition and failure.
Labour, meanwhile, is reviewing sentencing practices and exploring out-of-court measures to address reoffending. A separate review into Crown Court backlogs is anticipated in the spring, with expectations of radical proposals. Other measures already on the books include an Online Plea and Allocation system, designed to bypass magistrates’ court first appearances, ostensibly to streamline proceedings.
Labour’s General Election manifesto pledged fast-tracked rape trials and dedicated courts to handle such cases. However, concrete plans for achieving these promises without disrupting the broader justice system remain elusive.
There is no denying that the courts are currently in disarray. Years of underfunding and managed decline have left the system teetering on the edge. Prisons are at capacity, and the Crown Court backlog seems insurmountable without significant change.
But the urgency of the crisis must not blind us to the potential consequences of poorly conceived solutions. The adage goes, “Fix the roof while the sun is shining.” In criminal justice, however, we’ve allowed the roof to rot, metaphorically and literally.
The justice system has long been a low priority in Westminster. Budget cuts have been the norm, leaving court infrastructure in shambles. One courthouse, for instance, was found to have crumbling RAAC concrete in its roof—a problem ignored until the building was ultimately condemned.
Further compounding these issues, successive governments have sold off courthouses, often without due consideration. Judicial sitting days were slashed in 2018/19, triggering the backlog’s rise even before the pandemic. When COVID-19 struck, the courts struggled valiantly to stay operational but were ill-prepared for the seismic challenges it brought.
The justice system was further destabilised by Dominic Raab’s protracted standoff over Legal Aid fees, which drove lawyers away from the criminal sector en masse.
The current situation bears troubling similarities to the “Shock Doctrine” described by Naomi Klein in her 2007 book. Klein argued that crises are often exploited to push through controversial and unpopular policies. In the aftermath of 9/11, civil liberties in the United States were eroded, and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina became a feeding ground for private investors.
Straw’s renewed push to limit jury trials may be well-meaning, but it risks falling into the same pattern. It must be judged not as a desperate response to crisis but on its merits. Jury trials are a cornerstone of public trust in the justice system. Stripping this right in the name of expediency would have profound and potentially irreversible consequences.
There has been no public outcry for jury trials to be curtailed during times when the justice system was functioning better. Introducing such a change now risks making it permanent. Would a thriving democracy really want to lose this fundamental safeguard?
More Read
Two recent examples highlight how bad ideas can gain traction during crises.
In 2015, the Single Justice Procedure was introduced, allowing minor cases to be decided behind closed doors without public hearings. Initially celebrated as a cost-saving measure, the system has since revealed significant flaws, with injustices and diminished public trust in the courts as a result.
More recently, the government extended the use of a temporary annex containing five additional courtrooms at Woolwich Crown Court. Installed in 2011 and designed to last just a decade, it was made permanent in 2022 due to sheer necessity. Such stopgap measures underline the precarious state of the justice system.
The current chaos may make radical ideas seem appealing, but the long-term damage to public trust cannot be ignored. Replacing juries with panels or axing public hearings may appear efficient, but these measures would erode transparency and accountability. Our justice system, already fragile, cannot afford to lose the public’s confidence.
The right to a jury trial is not just a legal provision but a pillar of democracy. To dismantle it in the name of expediency would be a catastrophic mistake, with consequences far greater than the backlogs it seeks to resolve.
