The founder of Keir Starmer’s barristers’ chambers has criticized the proposed limitations on jury trials in England and Wales, labeling it “a betrayal of the values that Labour claims to uphold.”
Geoffrey Robertson KC, the founding leader of Doughty Street Chambers—where notable figures such as Attorney General Richard Hermer KC and Justice Secretary David Lammy have also worked—has authored an extensive 9,000-word critique coinciding with the committee stage of the courts and tribunals bill.
In this document, which was released on the Bar Council’s website on Monday evening, Robertson challenges the rationale and effectiveness of the proposal to reduce the court backlog by halving the number of jury trials. He describes this approach as “a cure worse than the disease.”
Robertson asserts, “The attack on juries should be seen as a betrayal of the principles that Labour is supposed to represent. How is it possible for them to abandon a principle that has been vital for dissenters and those advocating for progress over the centuries?”
He argues that the bill contradicts Labour’s historical commitment to progressive ideals, free speech, and peaceful protests. “MPs who support this measure will find themselves on the wrong side of their party’s legacy,” he adds.
The right to a jury trial, according to Robertson, is a cherished aspect of English heritage that is trusted by the public. It holds constitutional significance by enabling ordinary citizens to independently challenge the state and show leniency to defendants deserving of mercy.
Robertson illustrates his point by referencing Clive Ponting, who faced prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for disclosing documents to a Labour MP regarding the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. Under the proposed changes, Ponting would not have been eligible for a jury trial, despite being acquitted by jurors who disregarded the judge’s instructions to convict and considered his public interest defense.
He further notes that figures like Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could also lose their right to a jury trial if they were prosecuted in relation to the Epstein files, as their hypothetical cases would likely be deemed “lengthy” and “complex.”
Robertson emphasizes, “The judgment of 12 citizens, based on evidence examined by both the prosecution and the defense, is a more reliable indicator of justice than the opinions of a single judge or a panel of magistrates.”
He maintains that jury trials, conducted under the guidance of professional judges, are far superior to those before lay magistrates, who he describes as amateurs with the resources to penalize individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
According to Robertson, judges do not reflect the public’s diversity, often coming from an upper-middle-class background and potentially lacking insight into contemporary social and moral perspectives.
The human rights lawyer humorously remarked that “Doughty Street has become Labour’s version of Eton for the Conservative cabinet,” and argued that the proposed changes would increase the demands on court resources. He contends that additional hearings would be necessary to ascertain which cases qualified for jury trials, requiring detailed written justifications from judges.
Robertson dismisses claims that limiting jury trials is necessary to prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system as exaggerated. He attributes the backlog to budget cuts and insists that addressing other issues—such as delays in bringing defendants to court—would be more effective. He highlights that the proposals would not alleviate the lengthy investigative process involving police and prosecutors, which he notes often results in significant delays.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the Bar Council, commended Robertson for emphasizing the historical significance and value of jury trials. She expressed hope that many MPs will consider his insightful analysis and halt the detrimental aspects of the bill.
A source from the Ministry of Justice countered that increasing funding and improving efficiency alone would not suffice, stating, “Years of inaction by the Conservatives have led to a system that is no longer effective, where delayed justice equates to denied justice.”
“Only a combination of investment, modernization, and reform can reverse the backlog situation before the parliamentary term concludes,” the source added. “The alternative to this plan is the Conservative status quo: ongoing deterioration, failed trials, and victims disengaging from the justice system altogether.”
