Government’s jury trial changes are wrong

News

UK government’s jury trial proposals go too far, the Law Society of England and Wales has warned.

“Our criminal justice system is a crucial public service which for too long has been neglected, with victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for justice,” said immediate past president of the Law Society Richard Atkinson.

“The backlogs in our courts need to be tackled urgently and additional investment and resources and a commitment to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations are welcome.

“However, the government’s proposals go too far in eroding the longstanding right to be judged by a jury of our own peers. They allow a single judge to determine guilt in serious, life-changing cases which could significantly affect people’s liberty and reputations.

“Lasting reform requires sustained funding for court capacity and the legal profession, not rushed legislation that risks weakening confidence in the justice system.”

On increasing Crown Court sitting days, Richard Atkinson said: “Lifting restrictions on Crown Court sitting days and funding magistrates’ courts to their highest operational capacity is a step in the right direction.

“There are several more steps the government needs to take to tackle the backlogs and ensure fair and swift justice is delivered. This includes taking action to reduce the number of cases coming into the system, dealing with prisoners not being delivered to court on time and sorting out court technology and infrastructure. Workforce capacity needs to be built by increasing solicitors’ fees and recruiting more legal advisers.”

On increased use of AI in the court system, Richard Atkinson added: “We support modernising the justice system and adopting new technology, provided it enhances access to justice, is reliable, and ensures fairness.

“AI is not, however, a silver bullet to improve the justice system. It might help to ease some administrative pressures, but it is not a replacement for much-needed investment in the court estate and additional court staff.

“Where liberty and reputation are at stake, the government must take particular care to safeguard people’s rights and ensure fair processes. All decisions, especially those with serious consequences to people’s lives, must be made by humans.”

On remote hearings, Richard Atkinson said: “We agree there should be greater use of remote video hearings where appropriate. First court hearings after arrest where people’s liberty is at stake would not be appropriate.”

Notes to editors