Judged by the State or by Our Peers?

Why David Lammy’s Jury Policy Ignores the Lessons of the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381

History teaches one lesson more clearly than almost any other! When ordinary people lose faith in the justice system, stability collapses. The current move, associated with David Lammy, to reduce or bypass jury trials risks repeating one of the oldest and bloodiest mistakes in English history.

It weakens a vital safeguard that protects free speech, dissent, and fairness, and replaces it with greater reliance on state authority and professional elites.

The jury system exists for a simple reason. It ensures that individuals are judged by their communities rather than solely by agents of the state. This is not a technical detail of law. It is the foundation of public trust. Without it, justice becomes something imposed, not shared.

The Peasants’ Revolt

The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 shows what happens when that trust evaporates.

Late medieval England was not an economic wasteland. It was diverse, productive, and locally resilient society. Trades flourished, communities were self-sustaining, and customary rights shaped daily life. What broke this system was not poverty alone, but governance.

For decades, working people faced rising taxation due to financing a European war, rigid labour laws, and a legal system that increasingly served landowners and the Crown rather than the population.

Courts or judgements became symbols of oppression. Judges or government appointees were widely viewed as harsh, self-interested, and remote from the lives they ruled over. During the revolt, government appointees or the individuals who judged were deliberately targeted. This was not because people rejected law itself, but because they believed the law had stopped protecting them. Justice no longer felt communal or fair. It felt weaponised.

That distinction matters today.

The rebels of 1381 were not anarchists. Their demands were conservative in the truest sense. They wanted fair taxation, equality before the law, and accountability from those in power. Radical voices such as John Ball articulated a belief that all people were equal by nature and therefore deserved equal justice. Once that belief spread, rebellion followed quickly. Trust had already gone.

The revolt was crushed with extreme violence. Thousands were killed in the aftermath. This bloodshed did not occur because people had too much say in justice, but because they had lost all meaningful influence over it. When lawful routes for redress collapse, unrest does not disappear. It mutates. This is the danger in weakening jury trials today.

The role of Juries

Juries act as a pressure valve. They connect the legal system to public conscience. They allow speech, protest, and contested ideas to be judged in context, by people who live under the same laws as the accused. This is especially critical in political cases, protest related offences, and speech crimes, where the state has a direct interest in the outcome.

Reducing juries concentrates power. It shifts judgment away from the public and towards institutions that already suffer from declining trust. Judges may be skilled and conscientious, but they are not neutral in the way a cross section of society can be. Also lets be to the point, some Judges can be harsh and politically bias. History shows that when justice is seen as the preserve of professionals aligned with authority, legitimacy erodes rapidly.

David Lammy’s approach risks forgetting why juries survived for centuries. They survived not because they were efficient, but because they were trusted. They survived because people believed that being judged by their peers was fairer than being judged by the state alone. Understanding the battle for the future of juries is essential for anyone concerned with modern civil liberties.

Freedom of speech depends on this distinction. So does political dissent. So does social stability.

The lesson from 1381 is not that reform is dangerous. It is that reform which weakens justice without restoring trust is fatal. Once people believe the law no longer belongs to them, compliance becomes fragile and resentment grows.

England learned this lesson the hard way. It should not have to relearn it.

References

• Dobson, R.B. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Macmillan
• Hilton, R.H. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381. Routledge
• Musson, A. Medieval Law in Context. Manchester University Press
• Thompson, E.P. Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act, Allen Lane
• Ziegler, P. The Black Death. HarperCollins