Twelve good men and true

‘Courts cannot cling on to jury trials for the sake of tradition.’  So says Justice Secretary David Lammy, faced with a backlog of some 80,000 cases awaiting trial.  In an attempt to deal with the problem, he has now announced that those facing a possible sentence of three years or less – including for burglary, theft, fraud and some sex crimes – will lose the right to trial by jury.  As justification, he says that the move would be supported by Magna Carta, which, while laying down the basis for jury trial, pledged at the same time that no one should be denied justice through delays.

Let us unpack this a little.  The right to judgment by peers, enshrined, as David Lammy correctly says, in Clause 39 of Magna Carta in 1215, was put in place to limit the exercise of arbitrary and unlawful power by the king.  It has remained foundational to British justice ever since – a protection against the exploitative use of power by would-be dictators and despots, who would otherwise suppress opponents by the illegal seizure of their property and assets, and arbitrary imprisonment.  Similar perhaps to what one sees in places such as Russia, China, and Iran today.   In other words, for the last 800 years trial by jury has been foundational to the maintenance of British democracy and justice.  And, over that time, it has worked very well.

Certainly, the backlog of offences awaiting trial is today a serious problem.  It is not right, for instance, that a victim of rape should have to wait a possible six years for the offence against her to be brought to trial, while the perpetrator remains free to go about his daily life.  And it is an open secret that juries can, on occasion, appear wilfully perverse in their judgements.  But trial by jury, without doubt, gives transparency to proceedings, and to this extent is protective of the rights of both accused and victim alike.  If someone has committed an offence, they have to answer for it, and the current requirement for trial by jury – flawed though that requirement might be – stands in the way of the attempted coercive use of power on the part of the State.

So should we be worried?  Yes, we should.

With the slow but relentless growth in totalitarianism, all too obvious in recent years, David Lammy’s proposal to restrict the right of an individual, charged with an offence, to be tried by his or her peers, risks placing absolute and unscrutinised power into the hands of State officials, who may be dominated by ideologies hostile to the traditional Christian foundations and identity of our nation.  This could well mean, for example, that a Christian charged with a hate crime for quoting from the Bible will find him- or herself liable to summary conviction by a judge who has neither time nor respect for the nation’s traditional beliefs – and indeed, holds them in contempt, openly favouring woke and/or multi-faith ideologies.

Without doubt, the backlog of cases awaiting trial is a serious problem – as too is the shortage of available prison space.  But VfJUK suggests that giving more power to the State, which is already demonstrably and increasingly lukewarm in its support for the maintenance of Christian values, is not an answer.  Rather, we need a proper overhaul of the justice system that will see properly funded and even-handed administration of justice for all and serve to maintain proper order in society, protecting both individuals and the public at large from exploitation and the abuse of power.  We need a system that, without partiality, will uphold the law.

Trial by jury is based on, and outworking of, the Christian belief that all men and women, as made in the image of God, have the right to respect and freedom from the oppressive use of power by would-be tyrants.  As our society comes increasingly under threat from ideological and religious activists hostile to the faith and values of our country, it is a right that must be preserved.