The Justice Secretary’s proposal to restrict jury trials to only the most serious offences has sparked a fierce debate. Ministers say it will help clear the backlog of cases. Lawyers say it’s another attack on the right to a fair trial. Beneath that argument lies a deeper truth, familiar to many readers of Inside Time: the jury system is far from perfect, and too many people are paying the price for its failures.
For decades, the jury system has been treated as sacred. Politicians, judges and commentators often claim it is the “gold standard” of British justice. APMI (Association for Prisoners Maintaining Innocence) receives hundreds of letters concerning prisoners who were convicted by juries. Dismissing failings means accepting that innocent people being imprisoned is simply “how the system works”.
In our adversarial system, the prosecution builds a narrative of guilt and presents the defendant in the least favourable light. The defence then tries to undo that damage. Somewhere between these two performances, the search for truth can be lost. Prosecutors have an advantage: they do not face the same obligation as the defendant to tell “the whole truth”, and they choose how they frame the ‘evidence’. Barristers on both sides know they must maintain good relationships within the legal profession, which makes open criticism of each other less likely—even when tactics become questionable.
Structural problems make things worse. The pool of people allowed to serve on juries has grown, meaning serving police officers and others with potential conflicts may now sit in judgement. Jurors are also exposed to social media, even when told not to look anything up. Long before a trial begins, the media often portrays the accused as already guilty. These pressures seep into the jury room whether courts acknowledge it or not.
But perhaps the biggest flaw is the total lack of transparency. Jury deliberations are secret. Jurors do not have to explain their reasoning. A person can be sent to prison for decades without ever learning why twelve strangers reached the verdict they did. In every other area of public decision-making, reasons must be given. Yet in criminal justice—the area where liberty is at stake—the system accepts silence.
This secrecy makes appeals extremely difficult. Without knowing how a verdict was reached, how can errors be challenged? Cases like that of Andrew Malkinson, who spent 17 years in prison before finally being cleared, show that juries can and do make devastating mistakes.
Some of the notes juries send to judges during trials reveal misunderstandings that should worry anyone who values justice. Questions such as “Can we base our verdict on something not in evidence?” or “Are we allowed to speculate?” show that even fundamental rules are not always understood.
The growing complexity of modern trials adds to the problem. Jurors with no legal or technical background are asked to interpret scientific data, financial documents or digital evidence. When material is difficult to understand, people naturally fall back on impressions: how confident a barrister seems, whether the defendant appears “trustworthy”, or their own unconscious biases. If the performance of lawyers didn’t influence verdicts, it would be hard to justify the huge differences in what barristers are paid.
Majority verdicts have weakened protections even further. A person can now be convicted even if one or two jurors remain unconvinced. And the old idea of being judged by “one’s peers” rarely holds true in modern society. Teachers, students, and retirees may have little in common with a defendant in a highly technical case. Meanwhile, prosecutors regularly exclude jurors with any specialist knowledge, claiming they may be biased. Yet people with far less understanding—and sometimes stronger prejudices—are accepted without hesitation.
So what kind of reform is needed? Limiting jury trials, as the government proposes, only avoids the real issue. What is needed is modernisation, not reduction. Reasonable reforms could include:
• Allowing defendants to choose a judge-led trial with professional assessors, or a mixed panel of experts and laypeople.
• Preventing prosecutors from using irrelevant attacks or innuendo designed only to sway the jury.
• Requiring judges to explain clearly what counts as evidence and what is speculation or assumption.
• And most importantly, requiring juries to give reasons for their verdicts, so that appeals can address genuine errors.
The jury system is still seen as a symbol of democracy. But a symbol loses meaning when it no longer delivers justice. Many Inside Time readers know firsthand what happens when a jury gets it wrong. Justice should not depend on the charm of a barrister, the pressure of the media, or the prejudices of strangers. It should depend on truth and evidence.
Right now, the system too often falls short. Reform isn’t just desirable. It’s essential.
This article was originally written by Danny Barrs and Iain MacMaster for InsideTime.
