Should We Keep Jury Trials?

By Darcie Dudding

On the 10th of march the Second reading of the The Courts and Tribunals Bill passed, meaning that we are one-step closer to less access to jury trials, leading me to wonder why we should keep them. Jury trials have long been a key component of the criminal justice system. Based on the evidence presented in court, a jury of twelve members of the public decides whether a defendant is guilty in serious criminal cases heard in the Crown Court. But juries aren't used in every trial. Legislation permits criminal trials without a jury in certain situations, leading to magistrates or judges sitting alone to hear cases. 

One of the main benefits of jury trials is that they encourage democratic participation in the legal system. Jurors are chosen randomly from the general public, specifically those aged 18 to 75 who are registered to vote and who have lived in the UK for at least five years from the age of thirteen. They must make their conviction without the intervention of the judge. This idea has a long history in English law, as demonstrated in the Bushell case (1670). In this case, the jury, despite the judge's pressure, refused to convict William Penn, a Quaker preacher, of ‘unlawful assembly’. The principle that juries must be free from judicial intervention was established when the court decided that jurors could not be punished for their decision, as the judges had threatened in the Bushell case to lock them up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco until they reached a verdict that the judges agreed upon, and they were ruled . This illustrates how effective juries are in providing fair convictions, as jury trials also have the benefit of reflecting the values and viewpoints of the community. A jury is made up of people from various social and cultural backgrounds who assess the evidence in court as a group. Because of this diversity, verdicts may be more indicative of moral judgment and societal norms.

However, this illustrates an alternative issue with juries: they are not trained in law, and thus they may convict based on feeling, not facts. As the jury’s deliberations are confidential, it would be extremely difficult to investigate the possibility of bias in arriving at the verdict. This point came up in the case of R v Mirza (2004), where the defendant claimed that racial prejudice had been exhibited in arriving at the verdict (UK Parliament, 2004). The House of Lords held that the secrecy of the jury’s deliberations must be maintained, even if the jury has been involved in misconduct.  Additionally, Juries may find it difficult to grasp legal or technical evidence. This has been identified as a major problem, especially in fraud or financial cases, or when there is fear of tampering, as illustrated in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  Furthermore, jury trials are costly and time-consuming. The selection of jurors, presenting evidence in a simple manner, and ensuring the comfort of jurors during long trials can prove to be costly. Long jury trials are also considered one of the reasons for delays in the court system. This has made policymakers consider allowing judge-only trials in certain cases. 

Judge-only trials, also known as juryless trials, have several advantages. One of the advantages is efficiency. The selection of a jury can prove to be costly and time-consuming. This is exemplified by the R v Jubilee Line Fraud Trial (2003-2005). This case had to be dismissed after nearly two years of trial owing to the length of the trial. It has been identified as one of the most expensive trials in British history. Without jury trials, cases could be completed more efficiently, thereby reducing the number of cases in the criminal justice system.

Yet, while efficiency is required to ensure that any system continues to work, efficiency must never come at the expense of the constitutional values that provide the system its legitimacy. Additionally, many of the points concerning jury trials will not be remedied by removing them from the system. Judges, like jurors, are also human and capable of bias or error. Although judges possess legal training and experience, their decisions may still be influenced by personal interpretation or unconscious bias. In contrast, juries deliberate collectively, allowing multiple perspectives to be considered before reaching a verdict. This process of discussion and debate can reduce the risk that a single individual’s bias or misunderstanding determines the outcome of a case.

Furthermore, statistical evidence suggests that juries generally perform their role effectively. Research has shown that juries in England and Wales convict defendants in approximately 64% of Crown Court cases, demonstrating that they assess the evidence presented rather than automatically acquitting defendants(Thomas, 2010). Additionally, juries reach a verdict in around 99.4% of cases, highlighting that hung juries are relatively uncommon, and therefore juries are  effective (Thomas, 2010). Evidencing that juries are capable of carefully evaluating the evidence and reaching a decision collectively.

​In addition, jury  trials are already used in a limited number of cases. In England and Wales, around 95% of criminal cases are dealt with in magistrates’ courts without a jury (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 2023). Even within the Crown Court, many defendants plead guilty before trial. For example, in 2024, there were 76,653 defendants dealt with in Crown Court trial cases, but only 15,638 entered a not-guilty plea, meaning that only these cases required a jury to determine guilt (Ministry of Justice, 2024). This demonstrates that jury trials already represent a small portion of convictions. 

Nevertheless, concerns about efficiency remain significant. The criminal justice system in England and Wales has experienced increasing delays, with the Crown Court backlog reaching over 78,000 outstanding cases in recent years (Ministry of Justice, 2024). Such pressures have led policymakers to consider expanding the use of judge-only trials in order to reduce delays and improve efficiency. However, the law already provides limited circumstances in which jury trials may be avoided. As previously established, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judge-only trials may occur where there is a serious risk of jury tampering or where the complexity of the case makes a jury trial impractical. These provisions demonstrate that the legal system has attempted to balance efficiency with the preservation of the jury system.

Ultimately, while jury trials may be costly and occasionally slow, they remain a crucial safeguard within the criminal justice system. By allowing members of the public to participate directly in the administration of justice, the jury system promotes democratic accountability and public confidence in the courts. Although reforms may be necessary to address delays and support jurors in complex cases, removing juries entirely undermines the legitimacy of the legal process. Therefore, jury trials should remain a feature of the criminal justice system, with carefully limited exceptions where efficiency or fairness requires judge-only trials.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial