Freedom of speech will be under even greater threat if the British government is able to do away with jury trials for almost all cases because legal studies show a judge sitting alone is far more likely to convict defendants in free speech than juries, the Free Speech Union warns.
The Free Speech Union warns the United Kingdom risks losing “a check on governmental power and arbitrary justice” in “the biggest assault on our liberties in 800 years” if the government is able to push ahead this week with plans said to be looking at abolishing the right to a trial by jury in all but the most serious cases, such as murder, rape, terrorism, and others. For many other criminal cases where defendants face considerable jail time, the chance to have their guilt assessed by their peers hangs in the balance as Justice Secretary David Lammy looks for a cut-cost way to clear a backlog in cases, and the Union warns freedom of expression cases are particularly threatened.
In statistics cited by the FSU and reproduced by The Daily Telegraph, the Union said legal studies had found defendants in free speech cases are twice as likely to be acquitted by a jury than those who had sat in a court without. A statement by the Union said: “according to legal studies, jury trials provide a more balanced outcome, with higher acquittal rates in cases that might otherwise be influenced heavily by prosecutorial bias. Moreover, juries often bring diverse perspectives which lead to fairer judgments compared to decisions by a single judge who might have biases.”
Lord Toby Young, the founder of the FSU, added: “Trial by jury is a bulwark of British liberty and if people charged with speech offences are denied that right, they’re more likely to be convicted”.
The legal studies cited are said to have found that in cases over the past ten years, 16 per cent of defendants using freedom of speech as a defence were acquitted when brought before a magistrate’s court, where the bench both heard evidence and decides the guilt. In Crown Courts where there are juries, however, 28 per cent were cleared.
Even more strikingly, when looking at the most recent cases — pertinent evidence given the recent surge in so-called hate crime, speech, and political prosecutions — juries considering a not-guilty plea for speech offences acquitted 75 per cent of the time in the past 12 months.
The FSU said on the threat losing juries has to members of the public spuriously accused of thought and speech crimes as they launched their petition against the changes: “trial by jury has been an instrumental part of our judicial system, ensuring that ordinary citizens participate in legal processes and decisions, bringing community standards to the justice system… The jury system acts as a check on governmental power and arbitrary justice. It symbolizes transparency and accountability in ensuring fair outcomes. Without it, the legal process becomes more centralized, potentially giving unfair advantage to the state over individuals.
“…Cutting jury trials will undermine free speech. The Deputy Prime Minister’s plans are the biggest assault on our liberties in 800 years.”
Minister Lammy is expected to say in comments to Parliament this week that drastic action is necessary because the British legal system has developed a significant backlog, north of 80,000 cases, with court dates for even very serious crimes like rapes not expected for years. The backlog has emerged for several reasons: most of all because despite being one of the key purposes of government, the justice system is grossly underfunded. This basic truth has been compounded with court cases becoming more complex with time, requiring more sitting days to complete, the emergence of severe inefficiencies in the justice system, and the shutting down of society during the government’s choice to have lockdowns for Covid-19.
Rather than opening more courts to clear the backlog, Lammy is reported to be instead intending to simply reduce the quality of justice. Over the weekend, it was reported Lammy had said there was no choice but to press ahead with his specific plan because not to do so would mean failing the victims of rape.
The plan has been condemned and Lammy has been warned that it may struggle to pass parliament, owning to opposition from the House of Lords. Senior Labour figures have also criticised the move, but time will tell whether there could be a Commons revolt over setting back British justice.
Attacks on the policy have been particularly acute from the right. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said trial by jury is a centuries-long “essential part of our freedom” that protects the public from the government, and abolishing trial by jury in the vast majority of cases “will give our politicised judiciary far too much power.”
“This Labour government is crushing our freedom”, he said.
Conservative Party shadow justice minister Robert Jenrick — the party’s main spokesman on most issues these days — also spoke to the importance of the jury to keep the UK’s legal system strongly tethered to the sentiments of the public, not the politicians. He said: “Juries act as a safety valve within the justice system. They pool the collective wisdom of 12 citizens and ensure that the law does not stray too far from the values of the people it serves.
“Instead of depriving British citizens of ancient liberties, David Lammy should get his own department in order. The right to be tried by our peers has existed for more than 800 years – it is not to be casually discarded forever when the spreadsheets turn red.”
