David Locke on why the rationale for the proposed jury reforms is grossly inadequate
The government’s initial plans for reform of the criminal justice system—with a Bill intended to reduce the role of juries expected to be introduced this week—were not well received. It would seem that this led to some hasty redrafting, and when the proposals were announced in December, they had been somewhat moderated so as to retain jury trials for a wider range of offences. Nonetheless, they still represent a radical reform of the jury system, and if some late amendments were an attempt at appeasement, it was ineffectual.
Jury trials for everyone
Providing a chronological history of the establishment of jury trials would serve no purpose here, but it is relevant that the primary motivation for their introduction was to confer legitimacy on the legal system. Closely connected to that was the idea that juries would provide a safeguard against arbitrary, biased or politically influenced decision-making.
However, it was never intended that all offences would be decided by a jury, and that has never been the situation. Even before
