For over 20 years, I have stood in cramped cells and worn-out courtrooms, watching the state line up against the individual. I’ve seen frightened teenagers, exhausted mothers, people who made bad choices and people who were wrongly accused. Throughout it all, one thing has kept our justice system feeling fair: when it really mattered, ordinary people had the final say.
Twelve strangers, chosen from the community, sitting together as a jury.
Now, a Labour Government that claims to be “on the side of the many” is quietly pushing that safeguard towards the exit.
Last week, more than 100 lawyers warned the Ministry of Justice that Labour’s plan to drastically cut jury trials is a serious mistake.
In simple terms, the proposal is this: keep juries only for the very worst crimes—like murder and rape—and move a huge range of other serious offences to be decided by a judge alone. At the same time, they want to give more power to magistrates’ courts, which we already know produce some of the most unequal outcomes, especially for Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants.
And the reason given? The backlog of cases.
Yes, the backlog is real. Cases drag on for years, witnesses move away, memories fade, victims lose hope. But let’s be clear: juries didn’t create this backlog. It was created by political choices—court closures, crumbling buildings, cuts to legal aid, and fewer sitting days. Now, instead of fixing the problems, Labour wants to remove one of the foundations of our justice system.
When I talk to my clients about juries, even the most cynical ones understand. They might not trust judges or politicians, but they value the idea that “people like us” are in the room—a local builder, a teaching assistant, a retired nurse.
Take juries away from most serious cases, and you don’t just change who decides—you change how justice feels. It stops being justice with the public and starts being justice done to the public.
What’s especially frustrating is that Labour should know better. David Lammy’s 2017 review showed that juries were one of the few parts of the system that treated minority ethnic defendants fairly. The big problems were elsewhere—in policing, charging, magistrates’ courts, and sentencing. Having seen clear proof that juries work, Labour’s response seems to be: “Let’s cut them.”
This isn’t just a small tweak to speed things up. It’s a major constitutional shift. Once we accept that serious crimes—offences that can take your freedom, ruin your reputation, or separate you from your family—are decided by a single state official rather than a group of your peers, we may never get that balance back.
So where do the Liberal Democrats stand?
Our party has always stood between the individual and an over-powerful state. We opposed ID cards, extended detention without charge, and mass surveillance. This is the same fight, in different clothing.
We must be clear: anyone facing serious criminal charges must keep the right to choose a jury trial. Not just for the rare headline cases, but for the serious offences that affect real lives every day—assault, fraud, serious public order offences, some sexual offences. The kinds of cases that fill court lists on a rainy Tuesday in Newcastle, Cardiff or Birmingham.
If Labour really wants to fix the backlog, there are honest ways to do it. Fund more judges. Open more courtrooms. Pay criminal defence lawyers properly so they stay in the job. Repair crumbling buildings so cases aren’t delayed by leaking ceilings or broken heating. Use problem-solving courts where appropriate. None of that requires dismantling trial by jury.
I’ve sat with people who were found not guilty because 12 ordinary people took the time to really listen, to debate, and to finally say, “We’re not sure.” I’ve also seen clients accept verdicts they didn’t like because it wasn’t just “the system” that decided—it was the community, in miniature.
Take that away, and you lose something deep and precious.
Labour can call this modernisation or a tough choice. But to those of us in these courts every day, it looks like a government trying to cover up years of neglect by trading away one of our oldest liberties.
Jury trial isn’t a luxury or a quirky tradition. It’s what stands between a liberal democracy and something colder, narrower, and far easier to abuse.
As Liberal Democrats, if we stand for anything, we stand for that principle. And we should say it clearly, without backing down:
We’re not moving.
* Kamran Hussain was a candidate for Vice President in 2025 and is a managing partner/solicitor.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Chris Cory
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
10 Comments
Hear, hear, Kamran. Excellent piece, I fully agree with you.
Hear hear Kamran.
I hope our leader and MPs are listening and will speak up for this democratic right
We must stop this travesty in its tracks
Modernisation is one of the most vacuous words in the political lexicon but this Labour Government and its communication officers will no doubt continue to use it week by week. Kamran is right. We need to stand loud and proud on this issue. Meanwhile we should not be afraid of making common cause with others across parties.
Trial by jury is the foundation of democracy.
Trial by jury is the least contaminated/subverted/perverted form of democracy currently but is certainly not a currently secure form of democracy left to us following the Conservative gerrymanderingoid of obstructing the voting rights of many genuine voters.
Alas, the subversive actions of the Conservatives indicates that they will not oppose this totalitarian and deceitful government in its plans and actions to remove fundamental citizen rights and duties.
Consequently , the duty to protect our democracy, for it is no less than that so serious duty, rests upon the shoulders of the L. D. Party to obstuct and, hopefully block this fascist coup by the current Labour government.
That this curtailment of citizen democratic involvement/citizen democratic power is presented/marketed as an answer to a temporary problem without a limiting “sunset clause”demonstrates its deep dictatorial, long term purpose.
That in more than 900 prosecutions of subpostmasters the one known instance of a subpostmater being tried by a jury fo;;owing a plea of “not guilty” was aquitted, speaks loudly and clearly for the need for jury trials. [From AI Overview]
[Please just pause and think how much time, effort, stress and money would have been saved/not wasted byhaving jury trials for the more than 900 postmasters mistrialled]
Juries are the fondationand core of democracy
Juries give power to regular citizens which is why the current Labour Government plans to stunt them.
Please read the case in the article presented below. It is being is being pursued under “The Terrorism Act” in Jersey.
Why in Jersey when it is not a Jersey initiative but a prosecution directed from London?
Because the Norman based legal system in Jersey does not allow juries. It has “Jurats”.
“Jurats are elected by an electoral college composed of local politicians and members of the legal profession.” [AI Overview]
Profuse apologies!
Here is the artcle!
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
P. S. If the above does not work, you can find the article on Craig Murray’s Blog. Its title is “The Terrifying Case of Natalie Strecker”
Judges are hardly the most diverse bunch of people, and recent changes allow them to preside until the age of 75. I’ve no doubt that juries sometimes get it wrong, but how confident can Lammy really be that a single 75-year old will dispense better justice than a mix of 12 ordinary citizens? He was very strongly in favour of jury trials until very recently, but for some reason is now willing to upend years of convention in the hope of saving a little bit of time and money.
In listening to the justification put forward on the radio, it seemed a big issue was a defendants right to chose, however, this choice only seemed to be available once a case had reached court and thus require everything to be rescheduled.
If this is the case, surely, handling things a bit like parking tickets and speeding: accept the fine and penalty or elect to go to court, is going to improve court scheduling.
I agree, and with all the comments. Great article, clear, and well-reasoned.
I have not seen ministers being questioned on the details of this proposal. I suspect it would fall apart on inspection, but journalists have no clue.
The total time from investigation to verdict for serious crimes which tend go to a jury is very long, but the amount of that time that would change if it was just a judge and not a jury is minuscule (if anything). The time of swearing in the jury? Perhaps the issue of identifying if any jurors have any conflict? Where is the expected time saving.