Destroying the Proposal to Reduce the Role of Juries

Breaking Down and destroying each point

The government, led by Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, argues that reducing jury trials is a necessary response to a justice system in crisis. The Workers of England Union (WEU) wants its members to be clear about what is being proposed, why it is being justified, and why it represents a serious threat to working-class justice.

History shows us what happens when community judgment is weakened and power is concentrated in the hands of the state.

In the first article, we examined that history and why trial by jury became a cornerstone of justice in England. The second set out the government’s proposals so members could clearly understand what is being planned.

This article now takes those proposals apart point by point. The WEU makes no apology for this approach.

In the view of the WEU, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary has shown absolute contempt for working communities by seeking to strip away a fundamental safeguard of justice.

His claims are systematically exposed for what they are. Disguised as reform, but in reality, just a grab of power from communities across England, to the state, dressed up as efficiency.

Claim: Jury trials are too slow and cause court backlogs

The government argues that jury trials take too long to organise and run, contributing to the backlog in the Crown Courts. Removing juries from lower-level cases is presented as a practical way to speed up justice.

Reply from the WEU:

This argument deliberately ignores the real causes of delay. The backlog is the result of years of political decisions such as court closures, staff reductions, cuts to legal aid, chronic underinvestment and asset stripping the state whilst blowing that money on undeserving causes.

Juries did not create this crisis. Governments did. Blaming juries shifts responsibility away from those who hollowed out the justice system and places it onto a democratic safeguard that has existed for centuries.

Proposal: Judge-only trials for offences carrying sentences of up to three years

The proposal would remove juries from cases carrying sentences of up to three years, placing them before a single judge in so-called “swift courts”.

Reply from the WEU:

For working people, a three-year sentence is life-changing. It can mean the loss of employment, housing, and family stability. Calling these offences “minor” shows how detached this proposal is from the realities faced by workers. Removing the right to be judged by peers replaces collective judgment with individual authority, prioritising speed over fairness.

History offers a warning. During the Bloody Assizes of 1685, juries existed in name, but Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys dominated proceedings, steering verdicts and turning trials into instruments of punishment. He made juries discuss in open court with the fear that they would be next to go on trial if they did not agree with his verdict.

When judges are allowed to override or replace community judgment, justice becomes a weapon of the state and history clearly shows workers and families in England should be worried by this.

Proposal: Reducing the right of defendants to choose a jury trial

Under the proposals, courts rather than defendants would increasingly decide whether a case goes before a jury.

Reply from the WEU:

This is a direct transfer of power away from ordinary people. The right to elect trial by jury has historically protected workers, protesters, and Trade Unionists from hostile authorities, particularly during industrial disputes where prosecutions have been politically charged.

Removing that choice weakens a vital defence against institutional bias, a state unresponsive to community concerns and stops a state becoming autocratic.

Proposal: Increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers

The government argues that expanding magistrates’ powers will keep cases out of Crown Courts and speed up outcomes.

Reply from the WEU:

Magistrates are unelected, often socially unrepresentative, and already overstretched. Expanding their powers without addressing accountability, diversity, or training risks widening inequality and inconsistency in sentencing. Speed is again being prioritised over justice.

In The Lammy Review (2017) which is an official government-commissioned review authored by David Lammy MP he highlights that

“Juries deliberate as a group through open discussion. This both deters and exposes prejudice and unintended bias: judgements must be justified to others.”

Claim: These reforms improve fairness and consistency

Judge-led systems are presented as more predictable and less biased.

Reply from the WEU:

While judges are no longer appointed directly by ministers, the Blair system produced a judiciary that is narrow in background and outlook, shaped by judges who agree with the political and philosophical assumptions of the government.

Removing juries narrows decision-making further and reduces democratic oversight.

David Lammy now claims jury trials are a cause of delay and inefficiency, yet this sits uneasily as Lammy has argued that juries help deter and expose bias because decisions must be justified through collective deliberation, not imposed by a single authority.

He warned that justice systems perceived as unfair lose legitimacy, particularly among working-class and marginalised communities.

The contradiction is clear. A reform agenda driven by speed now dismantles the very safeguards he once identified as essential to fairness and public trust.

Why WEU Members and Trade Unionists Should Be Concerned

Every proposal moves power away from communities and towards the state. When justice becomes faster, quieter, and less visible, it is workers, protesters, and marginalised groups who pay the price.

From the Assizes to the prosecution of pickets, history shows that judge-dominated justice has rarely favoured organised workers.

The Workers of England Union stands firmly with our members in opposing these changes. Trial by jury is not an inconvenience! It is a protection won through centuries of struggle. We ask members to support this campaign.

Please contact the WEU’s office if you are willing to distribute leaflets, attend events, or help build opposition to these proposals.

References

• Magna Carta, 1215
• A History of English Law, Holdsworth, W.
• The History of English Law, Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W.
• The Lammy Review, 2017
• UK Ministry of Justice, Crown Court statistics
• BBC History, The Bloody Assizes
• Hansard, Criminal Court Reform debates
• The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, Lammy, D. (2017)