Below is my column in The Wall Street Journal on the move to sharply curtail the use of jury trials in Great Britain. The ill-conceived move is the work of Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor David Lammy, who previously denounced the idea as an abandonment of British values and the loss of a critical protection for citizens. It is a tragic variation on Winston Churchill’s legendary observation about the fleeting virtue of the insufferably sanctimonious. Like the socialite who was indignant when Churchill puckishly offered a small amount of money to sleep with him, it turns out that Lammy was “just haggling over price.” When faced with significant savings, Lammy is willing to toss aside the right that once defined them as a people.
Here is the column:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea,” Labor MP David Lammy said in 2020 as he denounced calls to reduce jury trials in criminal cases to save money. Now secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor, Mr. Lammy is seeking a major rollback on the quintessential right secured more than 800 years ago in the Magna Carta.
According to media reports, the government previously sought to remove jury trials for all cases involving a maximum jail term of five years. Now the government is moving to allow jury trials for “indictable-only” offences such as murder and “either-way” offenses with likely sentences of more than three years in prison. Judge-only “swift” courts will hear cases ranging from burglary, theft, fraud, sexual assault to stalking. Judges will also sit without a jury in fraud and financial cases deemed too complex for jurors.
For some of us, the greatest concern lies in how these reforms will interact with the prosecution of speech offenses. In the last two decades, free speech protections in the U.K. have been eviscerated. The criminalization of speech has expanded exponentially as individuals and groups call the police to silence those who criticize them or advocate opposing views.
Even silent prayer or “toxic ideologies” can lead to arrest. Expressing concerns over Western cultural values is now treated as an admission of “right-wing ideology,” warranting investigation. In April, the Times reported that police are making around 12,000 arrests per year over online posts.
Under the new proposal, these cases would generally be heard without juries, which may represent the last hope for free-speech advocates seeking to blunt the government’s onslaught. Research by the Free Speech Union in Britain indicates that defendants in speech cases are twice as likely to be acquitted by a jury than by a judge.
We have already seen justice meted out by British judges in speech cases. A few years ago, a neo-Nazi living with his mother was found to have a room filled with hateful symbols and material.
Judge Peter Lodder dismissed free speech concerns over the defendant’s possessions with a truly Orwellian flourish: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Calling the defendant “a right-wing extremist,” Mr. Lodder said the contents of his room were evidence of “enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology.”
Unlike Americans, the British tend to presume that government action is guided by benign motives. And the collapse of free speech in the U.K. has been, in part, due to the lack of American-style protections—like the First Amendment—for antigovernment or unpopular speech.
It is a crushingly ironic moment for both countries. Jury trials were a major catalyst in Americans’ early struggle against British abuses, as I discuss in my forthcoming book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
We are, in fact, approaching the 300th anniversary of one of the most important speech trials in American history, that of John Peter Zenger, editor of the New-York Weekly Journal. Zenger was arrested for exposing the corruption of colonial Governor William Cosby. After replacing the original judge and disqualifying Zenger’s counsel, the Crown lost its case when it was defied by a jury, which acquitted Zenger, even though under existing laws the paper’s writings were, indeed, libelous. One of the earliest examples of jury nullification in North America, this case influenced the Founders as they moved to guarantee public trials by jury in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Back in 2020, Mr. Lammy stressed that jury trials were a bulwark against government abuse and a guarantor of justice, that they acted as “a filter for prejudice.” Now, as justice secretary, he finds jury trials to be too expensive and unnecessary.
Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Riel Karmy-Jones has said the anti-jury proposal sends “a wrecking ball” through the British system of justice. She is right.
If London doesn’t listen, we’ll see the U.K. regress closer to an earlier, more oppressive state in which citizens are subjects, not the source, of British justice.
Mr. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” forthcoming in February.
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
You didn’t.
Along with your resolve, it is long gone.
Relish the demise you’ve brought upon yourself.
All nations should have been required to adopt and implement the U.S. Constitution as a condition for maintaining and advancing relations with the United States after World War II.
This would be us if things had gone the dems’ way last November, no question, and where they will take us if ever given the opportunity. The ‘no kings’ globalists who insist we need to be ‘more like Europe’ masquerading as liberals can pucker up and kiss my you know what. I’m at the point where I’m comfortable referring to them as not misguided, but evil.
I knew modern Labour would be the nail in the coffin, and it is wild watching this fascism unfold in ‘free’ Britain and more broadly.
We bailed out the limeys (and the rest of Europe) twice in the last century.
Watching them (1) disarm their citizens, and (2) restrict their citizens’ free speech rights has forced me to conclude that they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes all oppressed people make who refuse to stop electing their oppressors.
I just hope we Americans won’t bother to bail them out the next time they are invaded… which, many could rightfully argue, is happening now anyway.
“Unlike Americans, the British tend to presume that government action is guided by benign motives.” This is a throwback to earlier times when the King could do no wrong. America is NOT a post-feudal democracy and has no sentiment for believing its “king” can do no wrong. On the contrary, we hold whomever rules our realm to account and well that we do so. The Brits need to replace their Magna Carta with a MAGA Carta like we have. We surely are not perfect but our people can still do and say as they want without fear of the slammer, and we are still judged by a jury of our peers, not a bunch of powdered wigs who may or may not like the cut of our jibs.
NY legal system has me questioning. Actually the dc courts and legal system as well.
All they need to do is return to following the Magna Carte which requires that judgements of guilt are rendered by a mans peers.
The next regular scheduling of U.K. parliamentary elections is in August 2029. Elections can be held sooner either by the call of the Prime Minister or by the monarch, the latter in accordance with the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
In light of the general chaos within the UK’s governance and judiciary, I urge King Charles III to get out of his sick bed where he is recovering from cancer treatment and declare the dissolution of Parliament so that general elections can be held. I believe that, notwithstanding the liberal press’ and leftists’ attempts to bring down Nigel Farage with ginned-up charges of racism, that he would prevail, as I believe that the silent majority of the UK is ready for a strong, patriotic “Trump-like” leader to resurrect the British nation from the current coup d’main that is attempting to beat the nation down into subservience to the globalist elites that in the deep pockets of the CCP
Perhaps King Charles III would be inclined to do something like that but I would hold my breath. He has in the past advocated for many of the leftist causes Labor does and I don’t believe he has much in common with Nigel Farage.
Juries are when the people speak, and the government listens. We sometimes think jury trials are a waste of time and money. In moments of anger, we ask why we don’t simply kill those who murder children and be done with it. Britain’s move to reduce jury trials shows why that thinking is dangerous.
If you’ve watched a John Morgan, billionaire ambulance chaser podcast you would immediately understand what’s wrong with the judicial system here in America. In Europe, this is just an incremental step to Sharia law. It’s coming, the further we stray from God the worse it gets.
Merry Christmas to all! Peace on Earth, just for a day….
England has fallen…….
And good riddance.
The key differences in the format that Lammy proposes verses Adjudicatory Hearings, brings “indictable-only” and “either-way” offenses closer to the Adjudicatory Hearing format. One of the most obvious dangers of this “swift” justice is Case Load (or better Case-Overload).
As a Humanly practical matter the potential for gross error and burnout is obvious.
U.K.s moving toward a ‘Night Court’ format particularly for “indictable-only” offenses without Jury is the destruction of bedrock Justice of the Constitutional Conventions governing the People of the Commons. Should Lammy get his way, he will have broken his ‘ministerial responsibility’ with the People.
Ref.:
A.I.: Adjudicatory Hearing
An adjudicatory hearing is a formal legal proceeding, much like a trial, where a judge or hearing officer determines the facts of a case, especially in juvenile justice or child welfare matters, to decide if allegations (like delinquency, abuse, or neglect) are true, based on evidence presented by parties with rights to counsel, witnesses, and cross-examination. If the allegations are proven, it leads to a disposition (sentencing/treatment) hearing; if not, the case may be dismissed.
Purpose: To establish the truth of allegations, determining guilt (delinquency) or dependency/neglect.
Context: Common in juvenile court (like a criminal trial for youth) and child protection cases (abuse/neglect).
Process: Involves presenting evidence, testimony, and arguments, similar to a bench trial.
Rights: Parties (especially juveniles) have due process rights, including legal representation, calling witnesses, confronting accusers, and self-incrimination protection.
Outcome:
Sustained Allegations: The child is found delinquent, dependent, or abused/neglected, leading to a disposition hearing.
Dismissal: If allegations aren’t proven, the case may end.
Distinction from Disposition: Adjudication determines if something happened; disposition determines what happens next (services, placement, etc.)
A.I.: either-way offence
An either-way offence (or “triable either way”) is a UK criminal offence that can be heard in either the less serious Magistrates’ Court or the more serious Crown Court, depending on the severity and circumstances, giving the defendant a choice or the magistrates a decision-making role. Examples include theft, burglary, and drug offences, with the court deciding if their sentencing powers suffice, or the defendant choosing their venue, often based on factors like value stolen or victim vulnerability.
How it Works:
Initial Hearing: The defendant appears in the Magistrates’ Court.
Plea: They enter a plea (guilty/not guilty).
If Guilty: Magistrates decide if their sentencing power (e.g., up to 12 months jail) is enough; if not, it goes to Crown Court for sentencing.
If Not Guilty (or no plea): Magistrates decide if the case is more suitable for Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court, considering seriousness (e.g., high value theft, vulnerable victim).
Defendant’s Choice: If magistrates deem it suitable for either court, the defendant gets to choose.
Key Characteristics:
Flexibility: Balances efficiency with fairness for varying crime levels.
Examples: Theft, burglary, assault, some driving offences (dangerous driving, causing injury by driving).
Decision Factors: Seriousness, value involved, sophistication, victim vulnerability, defendant’s history.
Contrast with Other Offences:
Summary Offences: Less serious, only heard in Magistrates’ Court (e.g., minor disorder).
Indictable-Only Offences: Most serious, only heard in Crown Court (e.g., murder, rape).
Can I be the judge for the trial of the obnoxious anonymous?
Can I be the judge, jury and executioner of the ignornat longgreyhair commenter? Please, pretty please. I promise to make the execution slow and excruciatingly painful.
Serious people don’t make threats
Can’t be any worse than death or torture by any number of your posts…
It’s like Déjà Vu – You are free to do as you like, longgreyhair
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young – Almost Cut My Hair (Lyrics video)
Are really so numb as to believe there is just one person here using the anonymous tag?
I had read a little deeper review of this desire by the Labor Government to curtail jury duty and its use. It seems the prior Tory Government sold off many sites and buildings where courts were established, as a money saving move, as well as severing ties with many judges.. They were not trying to eliminate the jury just save money. This led to a backlog of cases because of the lack of sites to empanel and judge and jury for cases. The present Labor government could have simply re-expanded the courts to new sites but has decided to simply do away with the majority of jury trials instead. The result, however, is the same with a decline in jury trials . I’m not sure anyone here would want to throw themselves upon the mercy of the court in light of the state of English Jurisprudence or allowing Parliament to be the ultimate judge of and juror of you case.
Don’t read anything into it, its simply a streaming lining of the trail process. Nothing more.
Thank you for that additional information, GEB! Much appreciated!
The judges have given themselves titles–>Sir Judge. The serfs have little business on juries.
A judge here just overruled a jury and the judges here are pushing around the executive branch. Oh, Dame judge…
^^^ the Judges are benighted.
Juries are instruments of democracy. I am aware of no country that has a system of jury trials which is not also a democracy. The reverse may not be true. There are democracies in places where there are no jury trials, but every country that permits jury trials is also a democracy. Even in the Jim Crow south, where voting was restricted, presence on juries was likewise restricted to the same group of citizens. Democracy was allowed to the same group that was allowed on juries. A jury trial is the only place where ordinary citizens get to decide issues of community importance. We need to start thinking of jury “duty” as jury “privilege”.
Look no farther than the EU and UK to see what the next attempt for the DNC (Democratic National Communist) will attempt in the US!!! The only thing in the way is 80 Million Patriots. The Judicial Branch is already on that path!!!!!
Conquered
Internet has to be taken care of before juries. Free and unlimited exchange of ideas cannot be allowed to exist by masters of the universe. See what happened when Luther used printing press to undermine Catholic Church, biggest financial corporation on the planet. Then English king got same idea and liquidated cc assets.
We are now separated by more than just a common language.
They learned from the worst. The brits are the European Nazis of the 21st century.
Western Europe, that is the EU is desirous to wage war against Russia precisely because their indigenous population is rising towards self-determination in the form of demanding sovereignty and the freedoms we here in the US take for granted. War is the solutoj when all else fails, and the public is at your doorstep. Russia is our true ally and always has been. Not the Soviet Union, but Russia proper. Remember, the Tsar and his greater family were murdered and sanctined by the CITY OF LONDON. Cherish our Bill of Rights and the notion of “inalienable rights”.
I’m not sure I would call Russia our ally but they are definitely not the enemy they are made out to be by the Western propaganda machine.
Accusations that Putin is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union are beyong stupid. Just look at a map of Europe with the NATO countries highlighted. It looks like a giant, clawed crustacean attacking Russia.
Apparently the Empire cannot tolerate an independent nation not under its control.
Meanwhile, the Empire is getting its insides eaten by parasites of multiple types.
Time for NATO to slip quietly underneath the waters of its namesake.
Oh, and F the UN and its diabolical offspring too
Seems they older they get, the more they learn to hate.
“Seems they older they get, the more they learn to hate.”
Your response is so bland and lacking in specifics that it is a meaningless blib
Your response is so bland and lacking in specifics that it is a meaningless blib. Blib? Whatever …
Um… something smells fishy.
After witnessing judicial processes in NYC a year ago, I now understand the incompetence of judges in general and suggest many innocent people will go to prison. The words “whimsical” and “arbitrary” will see far greater usage in future.
understand the incompetence of judges. That’s interesting, care to share your exact understanding?
Innocent people will go to prison? Extrapolate that please.
you sound a lot like georgie.
As a member of the New York bar for 45 years, I, too, am discouraged about the judicial system in the Empire State. Judges are elected and many of them seem unqualified. They don’t seem to understand the cases very well and are reluctant to make decisions. They seem to push the parties toward settlements even when a settlement does not make sense. It becomes extraordinarily expensive for the target of an unmeritorious claim.
First take away the people’s ability to fight against a fascist government. Then, go full fascist on anyone who dares object to government power. It’s the same fascist playbook used in Germany and the Soviet Union.
No it is NOT.
And that playbook, got a copy to show us?
Get a copy of that playbook! Anonymous, you are a complete and total pompous a$$!
This is definitely read meat stuff. Watch the animals rip apart this one.
And don’t forget to buy upcoming book due out February.
Come on folks, he needs the money. help him out.
We could do a gofundme?
Then don’t bother to login and certainly refrain from commenting if he offends you mightily
Your so called interpretive skills are nonexistent. No where does anon discredit Turley.
The tone is distinctly mocking.
And that’s a problem Ellen? What are you now Miss Manners?
What IS a problem is the increasing attempt by anonymouses like you to disrupt this blog and make fun of Turley. Miss Manners would question your real motive. THat is why you are afraid of her.
Ellen stop hiding behind an anon tag, but you use it to target others. Am I right?
Disrupt? Really? You think, to put it mildly, that the garbage (90%) that’s posted here is intellectual discourse?
they especially need to approach the subject with reading comprehension.