Here in the UK, over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about removing jury trials for the majority of criminal offenses, and instead having trials decided by a judge. The Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, has floated the idea of only maintaining jury trials for crimes with over 3 years jail time such as murder, attempted murder, rape, etc. The official reason for this is to save time, as the UK has a backlog of criminal cases, and Lammy argues that judges will be quicker than having to call and seat juries.

This policy may not be implemented, at least in the short term, because there is opposition to it from within the ruling Labour Party. However, the fact that this policy has even been suggested is revealing. It must be for a reason, and I don’t believe the official reason of saving time, since they didn’t care very much about any legal disruptions caused by lockdowns.

So what’s the reason? In my opinion, it is to guarantee convictions under the increasingly authoritarian anti free speech and anti protest legislation that has been passed over the last 5 years. We have seen a state of such draconian legislation, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, or the Online Safety Act, that claim to be in the name of public safety but in practise enhance state authoritarianism. For example,the Online Safety Act massively increases censorship through the excuse of protecting children. We are also seeing a large number of arrests of people for simply holding placards stating that they support Palestine Action, a direct action group that occupies arms factories that send weapons to Israel. There have also been some people arrested and/or convicted for comments made online on the political right. For example, Joey Barton, an (in my opinion) obnoxious ex-footballer, was arrested for comments which while offensive, were bad taste jokes (such as referring to football commentators he didn’t like as serial killers Fred and Rose West).

However, in order to enforce this authoritarianism fully, they need to be able to secure convictions on the charges. Which means they need juries to vote guilty. But there may be a significant number of jurors that would not convict, either because they agree with free speech principles or because they sympathise with the cause represented by the protesters. This weakens the ability to enforce these laws. Judges, on the other hand, would follow the law and convict under these draconian laws, enhancing enforcement and authoritarianism.