Dear all
We are now beyond the eleventh hour regarding the further curtailment of Trial by Jury. I write this only as a limited and rather general guide to possible approaches and arguments that could be made in response to this invitation for evidence:
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9654/legislative-scrutiny-courts-and-tribunals-bill/
The level of arrogance is, frankly, jaw-dropping of an establishment and political class that thinks it can propose unconstitutional alterations to the people’s fundamental rights in the first place, do so with a cynical level of complexity and presentment of those proposals and then implement a timetable of a speed that is likely to hamper any serious questioning and protest from those of us who’s rights and protections they are removing.
The Bill is complex and there has been no white paper to explain clearly to the public what is intended but there is an explainer (linked at the end) which will be something that people will want to read.
The Ministry of Justice are probably expecting technical responses to the complex legislative changes in the Bill itself, but, given the lack of opportunity to express outrage at the very notion of the removal of right to Trial by Jury, it will be hardly surprising that many of us will be providing more general feedback.
The general arguments, if you have been following my material, you will know well and might include…
- Justice, in order for it to be done at all, is to be done before a jury
- A jury is a constitutional right enshrined in the Great Charter and stands to reason as the only mechanism that protects the people from an overreaching government
- It is ironic but hardly unexpected that the state is wishing to remove the people’s most important constitutional protection… …from the state.
- The excuse that because we now only have 1% of cases reaching a jury and that therefore there is no fundamental right to a jury, is disingenuous.
- The gradual curtailment of Trial by Jury and re-categorisation of offences to Summary Only has always been unlawful and unconstitutional
- Just because we have already done this (in 1855, 1977, 1988 etc.) does not mean that doing it again, is not breaching the fundamental constitutional rights of the citizen.
- What it shows is that it was never lawful to do this at anytime
- Making these proposals is causing a breach of the King’s Oath - which is to govern according to the people’s laws and customs (Legem Terrae - The Law of the Land)
- Judicium Parium (the Trial by Jury) is part of the Law of the Land
- It also stands to reason that, if Trial by Jury is a fundamental cornerstone and constitutional right of the people, how fundamental can it really be, if the government itself, the institution from who’s overreach the Trial by Jury is a fundamental protection, has a right to remove it?
- The entire purpose of the Trial by Jury is to subjugate the entire machinery of government under the consciences of the people
- The legislature cannot be a master over conscience
- The Trial by Jury and its Common Law sits above the legislature
- Otherwise, through the nonsense of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the government supposedly can legislate anything it likes
- Without Trial by Jury, there are no effective checks on government - the argument that ‘political checks and balances’ are an effective check would be an embarrassingly weak response.
- This process of the very removal of Trial by Jury itself is demonstrating perfectly the real nature and lack of the effectiveness of ‘political checks’ on the legislature
- The idea that people ‘give consent’ to legislation that hasn’t even yet been proposed is absurd? The existence of the whip system that pressures our representatives perhaps into surrendering a principle for their loyalty to a party?
- A Parliamentary system that ‘hides’ or hinders the accessibility of any opposition or scrutiny to a Bill through clever legislative ‘tricks’ such as fast-track timetabling and bullying techniques is clearly not to be trusted
- All of this indicates that legislators are not to be trusted and demonstrates precisely why Trial by Jury is a constitutional principle and why it must not, and cannot, lawfully be removed by legislators themselves
- Regardless of what difficulties you may have created for yourselves in the form of a backlog by not adequately funding justice (the government’s only real purpose), you, as public servants, are still obligated to facilitate proper Justice.
- That doesn’t only mean ‘no delay’ (MC 1215 Article 40), it also means ‘Proper justice through one’s peers / social equals’ (MC 1215 Article 39). You don’t get to allow one of those to slip, for the sake of the other - you are required to fulfil both.
I am sure you can think of many more arguments but ultimately, it will be worth expressing your opposition at the fundamental level and less at the level of impracticality in dealing with backlogs etc.
Objection at a general level will be mainly to clauses 1, 2 and 3.
Further documents that might be useful in your understanding:
Government Explainer:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/en/240389en.pdf
Criminal Bar Association (CBA) briefing note:
https://x.com/TheCriminalBar/status/2028494632355578116?s=20
CBA Nutshell Guide:
https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/The-CBAs-Nutshell-Guide-to-the-Courts-and-Tribunals-Bill-2026.pdf
An interesting thread on X from Joanna Hardy-Suskind, a prominent Lawyer:
https://twitter-thread.com/t/2029309659056595429?fbclid=IwY2xjawQXzfVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEedL7J7e47QxTgs1NlCyF3TrZO_d3a2vxFKoDfo1X79hNziWP7fhNPL2yfVx8_aem_-9rI5uL4oSxp3zCHUkLF9g
Good luck :-)
Will