Yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons on the Courts and Tribunals Bill has prompted significant concern among those who care deeply about the integrity of our criminal justice system. Having served for more than twenty-three years as a Justice of the Peace in London, including eighteen years as a Presiding Justice in some of the busiest magistrates’ courts in the country, I read the proposals with a mixture of disappointment and alarm.
During that time I have also sat regularly in the Crown Court at both the Old Bailey and Southwark hearing appeals from the magistrates’ courts alongside a professional judge and fellow magistrates. That experience has given me a front row seat to the strengths of our system, but also to its occasional failings. It is precisely because of that experience that I believe some of the Government’s proposals in this Bill are misguided and potentially damaging.
Trial by Jury is a fundamental constitutional right
The most troubling proposal is the move to allow certain criminal trials to be heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury.
Trial by jury is not a procedural luxury that can be trimmed away for administrative convenience. It is one of the central constitutional protections of the English legal tradition. For centuries juries have stood between the citizen and the power of the state. They bring the collective judgement of ordinary people into the courtroom, ensuring that criminal justice is not administered solely by officials of the state.
The jury system has deep historical roots reaching back to the medieval development of the common law and later becoming firmly embedded in the constitutional settlement that followed the struggles between Crown and Parliament. It is one of the defining features of the rule of law in this country.
In the Commons debate, Sir Geoffrey Cox articulated this point powerfully, warning that jury trial is not simply a matter of efficiency but of liberty. He reminded the House that juries serve as a constitutional safeguard against the overreach of the state and help maintain public confidence in the justice system.
I agree entirely.
The Government’s argument is that removing juries in certain circumstances could help address delays in the Crown Court. But constitutional safeguards should not be weakened in order to solve administrative problems. The proper response to court backlogs is investment, better case management and sensible reform. It is not the erosion of one of the most fundamental rights in our criminal justice system.
The right of Appeal must remain robust
Equally troubling is the proposal to replace the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court with a permission based system.
At present, defendants convicted in the magistrates’ court have the automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court, where their case is heard afresh by a professional judge sitting with magistrates. This is an important safeguard. It ensures that mistakes made in the lower court can be corrected quickly and fairly.
Over many years sitting on such appeals, I have personally witnessed several cases where the original decision in the magistrates’ court was simply wrong. Sometimes the error arose from misinterpretation of the evidence. Sometimes it stemmed from procedural issues. Quite often it resulted from decisions taken by a District Judge sitting alone, without the balancing effect of fellow judges, magistrates, or a jury.
Those cases were corrected because the defendant had an automatic right to appeal.
If appeals become subject to permission, there is a real risk that some miscarriages of justice will never reach the appeal court at all. The current system works precisely because it allows a straightforward route for correction where something has gone wrong.
Justice must not depend on whether an application for permission clears an additional procedural hurdle.
Sensible reform where it helps
Not every element of the Bill is problematic. I do support the proposal to increase magistrates’ courts sentencing powers.
Whilst I am not a fan of imprisonment other than where absolutely necessary, allowing magistrates to impose longer custodial sentences will enable more serious cases to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court rather than being committed to the Crown Court for trial and/or sentence. That could help reduce pressure on Crown Court lists and improve overall efficiency.
However, even here the Government has been cautious in providing for a range of maximum custodial sentences from 6 to 24 months at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. In my view the maximum sentence available to magistrates could reasonably be increased to 24 months, rather than the envisaged 18 months. Magistrates today are well trained, experienced and capable of handling a broad range of cases. Indeed already the vast majority of criminal matters start and end in front of a magistrates’ court.
Justice, Rights and the Rule of Law
Underlying these debates is a broader question about Britain’s commitment to the rule of law and to fundamental rights.
I remain strongly committed to the United Kingdom’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and its incorporation into domestic law through the Human Rights Act. These instruments reinforce core principles such as fair trial rights, access to justice and the accountability of the state.
Reforms to the justice system should strengthen those principles, not weaken them.
Efficiency matters. Court delays matter. Victims and defendants alike deserve timely justice. But reforms must be guided by constitutional principle as well as administrative convenience.
Trial by jury and a robust right of appeal are not expendable features of the system. They are central pillars of public confidence in British justice.
If we erode them, even slightly, we risk losing something far more important than efficiency. We risk losing the trust that citizens place in the fairness of the law itself.
C. E. Lord OBE 