In Parliament’s Dec. 2 hearing, the United Kingdom’s Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy made a major announcement about his plans for a major justice system reformation, according to a press release from the Ministry of Justice. The main change here that’s making world headlines, is the removal of citizens’ right to a jury trial in cases with likely sentences under three years. With a caseload set to hit 100,000 by 2028, according to that same press release, a new “swift and fair” plan was in order.
According to his government page, Lammy has only been in this role since Sept. 5, about three months, and is already moving for major change and a major change it is indeed.
To be clear, these new “Swift” trials, as coined by the Ministry of Justice’s press release, will still be trial by judge, which means there is still the same supposed impartiality of a jury trial. However, these trials are only estimated to take 20% less time than a jury trial. To put that in perspective, for a weeklong trial, a trial by a jury would only take one day more than a trial by a judge. All serious and violent offenses on the other hand (or any crimes with likely sentences over three years) will still hold the same right to a trial by peers (i.e. jury members).
Now, this change is happening in a completely different country. People will still have impartial trials, and the courts will move even quicker. Defendants for all violent and serious crimes will still have the option to undergo the regular trial process. But let me explain exactly why this is still a bad thing.
Article 6 of the U.K.’s Bill of Rights Convention says, “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” So, the right to a fair and public hearing, or a trial, is a basic human right, yet a backlog of cases is enough to take it away.
Taking away a basic right for the sake of expediency is simply wrong. Lammy blames this increasing backlog of cases on delays that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to his press release. Again, he’s estimating the U.K. to accumulate a total of 100,000 cases worth of backlog over the next three years. To him, this is the only way forward to reduce it.
Of course, the United States courts on a state and federal level experienced these same case pileups. However, an analysis of a 2022 Federal Judicial Center Report by Nate Raymond for Reuters explained that this backup was back to normal levels by March 2022. So, the United States cleared the majority of the backlog in two years, while the U.K. is five years out and counting, and needs to resort to extreme measures to clear it.
Finally, in that same press release announcing the change, the Ministry of Justice talks about the impacts of the new system and wrote that,“handing courts the power to decide where cases are heard no longer allowing criminals to game the system and torment their victims.” Now, this quote is made in context with the many sexual assault victims withdrawing their cases due to years long waits. It is still disgusting to frame the issue in this light, as these defendants are stuck in the court system like everyone else awaiting their fate.
While I recognize the U.K. justice system may not have all the systematic failures of the United States’, there is still so much to be said about the potential miscarriages of justice we are looking at here. A trial before a judge is in no way the same as a trial before your peers. I understand the concerns about courts getting backed up, but with only 20% quicker trials, will this even make the difference Lammy posits?
When a human’s life and freedom hangs in the balance, we cannot prioritize “speed”. I thought the rule was that all defendants were innocent until proven guilty. With this rush to judgement, it seems more likely that more will be found guilty, perhaps unjustly. According to the U.K.’s Ministry of Justice, their work is “to protect and advance the principles of justice.” Their work is failing, as this new change is not an advance but a step backwards.
