Jury trials are failing Britain - it’s time for real reform

Last week the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, proposed cutting down on jury trials. His suggestion may be controversial, but it is rooted in an uncomfortable truth: the current system is no longer fit for purpose.

As a former lay magistrate, I have seen the cracks in Britain’s justice system widening year after year. What the public is often told about the sanctity of jury service and the noble tradition of the magistracy bears little resemblance to the reality inside the courtroom. The truth is starker: our reliance on laypeople - however well-meaning - to deliver justice is no longer workable. We must remember that when the concept of jury trials was embedded in our legal system by Henry II in the 12th century, the population of Britain was a mere 2 million. Today – with a population of over 65 million – the principle of being tried by your peers is time-consuming, difficult to administer, and ridiculously expensive.

For generations we have romanticised the jury system. The idea that twelve ordinary citizens, plucked from everyday life, can weigh complex evidence with precision and legal understanding is appealing - but naïve. Modern trials frequently involve dense forensic data, intricate financial records, digital evidence, and specialist testimony. During my time on the bench, I saw how bewildered some magistrates became when confronted with even the most basic legal definitions, let alone highly technical arguments. In such moments, cases stop being about facts and start becoming about performance - about which lawyer presents more convincingly, speaks with greater authority, or uses more emotive language. Justice should not depend on theatricality. Yet too often it does.

Inefficiency is another crippling weakness. Jury trials grind forward at a glacial pace. Cases can run for months, costing the taxpayer millions. If a juror falls ill, or simply refuses to co-operate, entire trials collapse or must restart - another enormous waste of public resources. Meanwhile, courts across Britain are buckling under record backlogs. Justice delayed is justice denied, yet delay has become the norm.

The magistracy faces its own problems. Although I served proudly, and many colleagues work tirelessly, the structure itself is flawed. Magistrates are volunteers. We are not legally trained. And while we receive guidance from legal advisers, that is no substitute for years of professional legal expertise. Furthermore, magistrates tend to be drawn from a narrow demographic: often older, middle-class, and professionally established. This creates a perceptual and experiential gap between those on the bench and those appearing before it. Despite every effort to be objective - and many magistrates strive admirably - unconscious bias inevitably seeps in.

Bias also infects jury trials. Jurors bring their prejudices, life experiences, and assumptions into the courtroom. Without professional training, how can these biases be identified, managed, or corrected? They can’t. And because jurors never explain their decisions, the reasoning behind a verdict remains hidden forever. This lack of accountability is a serious democratic problem.

David Lammy’s call to reduce the number of jury trials is not an attack on democracy; it is a long-overdue recognition of reality. Modern crime is too complex. Our courts are too stretched. And the stakes are too high to cling to nostalgic traditions that no longer serve the public. Specialist judges, panels with legal expertise, and streamlined procedural reforms would deliver swifter, more accurate, and more consistent justice.

We must finally admit what those inside the system already know: relying on volunteers - whether jurors or magistrates - to navigate 21st-century crime is unrealistic. Goodwill cannot replace expertise. Enthusiasm cannot replace training. And tradition cannot excuse inefficiency or inaccuracy.

Having served as a magistrate, I believe in justice. But I believe even more strongly that justice must evolve. Lammy’s proposal should be the beginning of a serious national conversation about reform - not the end of it. Britain deserves a justice system that is informed, accountable, and effective. The time for sentimentality is over. The time for reform is now.