Abolition of jury trials for other than serious cases

An alleged murderer or rapist will have the right embedded in our constitution to have his or her case heard by 12 ordinary members of the public his peers who can decide his future.

Juries take their duties seriously. They are not as people think 12 ordinary people coming in from the rain looking for a few quid. It is the bedrock of liberty and a safeguard.

Statistically judges and magistrates have a much higher conviction rate and there have been huge miscarriages of justice.

Suppose you are an accountant an upstanding member of the community. You have a family are in line for captain of your local golf club, have clients who respect and come to you for tax and other advice.

You are then charged with say a VAT fraud. Is this not serious? A conviction will result in you being thrown out of your profession, resign from your golf club, disgraced and shamed amongst your family and friends. So that is not serious according to David Lammy?

Of course it is.

There is also not a shred of evidence that a judge with two magistrates would be quicker than a jury trial, so the whole thing is a disgraceful nonsense.

The way to reduce the backlog of cases is to take up the judge’s offer to sit more sitting days speed up procedures with the use of AI, offer a bigger discount for an early guilty plea and spend more money on judges and courts and the court system to get it down.

This proposal should be consigned immediately to the dustbin of history. It could be you?

December 2025
Rodney Hylton-Potts