My Take | The role of jurors in the legal system should be strengthened, not restricted

The hallowed tradition of trial by jury, dating back hundreds of years, is one of the most fundamental and best-known features of Britain’s legal system. It has been adopted around the world, including in Hong Kong. But nothing is sacred, it seems. Last week, UK justice secretary David Lammy announced plans to dramatically cut back the use of juries, slashing the number of criminal trials using them by half. It is a drastic step.

The proposal, for England and Wales, is to only use juries in cases likely to lead, on conviction, to a prison sentence of more than three years. Jurors will also no longer sit on complex cases of fraud or financial crime. Serious offences, including murder, manslaughter and rape, will continue to be tried by juries. But lesser crimes, such as burglary, theft and criminal damage will either be heard by a judge sitting alone or by magistrates.

The plan has met with an immediate backlash. Critics have slammed the abolition of the jury system for 7,500 trials a year. But it is a watered-down proposal. A leak revealed the government had been contemplating scrapping jury trials for crimes attracting sentences of five years or less. This provoked an outcry and, it seems, a compromise.

Lammy says the radical reform is required to ensure justice for victims is neither delayed nor denied. There is an urgent need to clear a shocking backlog of criminal cases.

There are now 78,000 cases pending and the Ministry of Justice estimates that by 2030 that figure could rise to more than 135,000. This means the gap between a defendant being charged and the trial can be up to five years.

The delays are taking their toll. Six out of 10 victims withdraw from the case rather than endure the stress of a long wait for justice. More than 10 per cent of adult rape cases collapse as a result of the victim pulling out. This is unacceptable and unsustainable.