Keir Starmer, whose government has drawn up plans to scrap almost all jury trials, has previously said all criminal cases, including magistrates courts, should be heard before a jury, the Guardian can reveal.
In a magazine article the Prime Minister wrote that “the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the State and the liberty of the individual”. He called for jury trials to be extended to thousands of cases before magistrate courts “despite the inevitable increase in costs”.
His words come a day after government sources confirmed the proposals, which could be implemented in the new year, would mean juries would only adjudicate on public interest crimes with prison sentences of no more than five years.
A leaked Whitehall document outlining the proposal sparked a sharp reaction from senior lawyers, who said it would not reduce the court’s backlog and could “destroy justice as we know it”.
In an article published in Socialist Lawyer magazine in the spring of 1992, Starmer, who was reportedly secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, wrote: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the State and the liberty of the individual. The more it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Despite the inevitable increase in costs, the Haldane Society urges that there should be a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases.”
The Labor leader resigned from the Haldane Society when he was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008, and was censured by the group in 2021 for “not being clearly a socialist”.
A government spokesperson said: “Jury trials are fundamental to our justice system and always will be for the most serious crimes. No final decision has been made, but the Government is committed to getting on top of the record backlog – 78,000 cases and rising – and getting victims the justice they need.”
Under proposals outlined by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, jury trials would be abolished in England and Wales for all but the most serious crimes such as rape, murder and manslaughter. He suggested that cases involving sentences of up to five years for other serious crimes would be heard by judges alone, removing the ancient right to trial before a jury for thousands of defendants.
Labor peer and legal expert Helena Kennedy has condemned the plans as a “mistake”. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Lady Kennedy said: “The reason the system has come to its knees is because we have underfunded the justice system in ridiculous ways because it is not considered important enough. But one of the greatest powers of the jury system is actually bigger than the law and cases.
“It’s…one of the very few ways that the public can participate in our institutions. The public comes into the courtroom and they give themselves over to the system because judges deal with the law and advise them on the law, and they deal with the facts, they assess whether people are being truthful or not. And it’s really a valve on the system, and everywhere, we’re destroying trust in our institutions.”
After newsletter promotion
Another Labor peer, former Justice Secretary Charlie Falconer, defended the proposals. “The increase in the number of crimes, the increase in disclosures, means that the system, as Brian Leveson said in his report, cannot cope. It takes years for a trial to start. Now, defendants game the system. So they say: ‘Let’s plead not guilty and hope the victims and witnesses go away.’ And they do, and they get released as a result. But the system itself is not fair. If it’s a jury system, we never get the reason why someone is convicted.
The Justice Ministry said no final decision had been taken by the government, but sources confirmed that proposals had been circulated throughout Whitehall in preparation for an announcement in the new year.
<a href