Ivan: 0:04

Hello and welcome once more to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates from the benches of UK Parliament, a new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. So we're getting right into it today with a debate that truly goes to the heart of British Liberty. It's about these reported plans to restrict the right to a trial by jury. And this isn't some uh academic legal point. This is a response to an urgent crisis in our courts.

Amy: 0:28

It is. And what's so striking is how the debate exposes this fundamental clash of principles. On one hand, you have this desperate negative for swifter justice, but on the other, you're talking about protecting a right that's been around for centuries. And the background to all this is um it's an emergency the government has inherited. The criminal court backlog is now approaching 80,000 cases. Just a staggering figure. And behind every one of those cases is a victim or a defendant whose life is effectively on hold.

Ivan: 0:58

And the human cost of that is just devastating, isn't it? We heard these examples in Parliament like a woman who reports a rape in London today. She could be waiting until 2029, maybe even 2030, just for her trial to start.

Amy: 1:08

It's shocking.

Ivan: 1:08

It really is. And that's why you hear that phrase from Magna Carta so often in this debate. Justice delayed is justice denied. So with delays like that, it's clear something has to change. What's the government's proposed solution?

Amy: 1:22

Aaron Powell Well, they've commissioned what they're calling a once-in-a-generation review from a very senior judge, Sir Brian Levison. No final decisions are out there yet, but they've signaled they intend to implement his blueprint for reform pretty soon.

Ivan: 1:36

Aaron Powell And what's the philosophy behind that blueprint?

Amy: 1:38

The government's line is that you can't just throw money at this. They're talking about deep structural reform. They do offer assurances, of course. They say jury trials will remain the uh cornerstone for the most serious crimes.

Ivan: 1:51

Aaron Powell But it's worth taking a step back here to get some perspective on how often juries are actually used. Most people probably think nearly every trial has one.

Amy: 1:58

Aaron Powell That's a common misconception.

Ivan: 2:00

The reality is that 90% of all criminal cases are already dealt with by magistrates with no jury at all. The number of cases that actually reach a jury in the Crown Court is tiny, only about 3%.

Amy: 2:11

And that small number brings us to the absolute core of the conflict. The government is claiming that some defendants are now uh actively gaming the system. We're looking at what they call either way offenses. These are less serious crimes where a defendant can choose a quick hearing with a magistrate or a long, expensive Crown Court trial with a jury.

Ivan: 2:32

And more choosing the long route.

Amy: 2:33

Significantly more. The proportion opting for a jury trial has actually doubled. It's gone from 8% back in 2014 to 17% in 2022.

Ivan: 2:42

And the government's accusation is that this is deliberate. They believe career criminals facing minor charges are clogging up the system, hoping witnesses will give up waiting. The minister even talked of seeing them laugh in the dock.

Amy: 2:54

It's that perception of abuse that's really driving this push for change.

Ivan: 2:57

But the opposition is hitting back and hitting back hard. They're calling it constitutional vandalism.

Amy: 3:02

A very strong phrase.

Ivan: 3:04

It is. And they're pointing out what they see as hypocrisy, quoted the Justice Secretary himself, who previously said that jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. Their argument is that the problem isn't the jury system. The problem is a decade of neglect. Empty courtrooms, sitting days being capped.

Amy: 3:22

So they're saying the solution is to properly fund the courts, not restrict people's rights. And that's the painful question that the Levison Review really puts before everyone. It's a question of proportionality, isn't it? Is it right that someone accused of stealing, say, a bottle of whiskey, can choose a jury trial and jump ahead in the cue of a rape victim who's been waiting for years?

Ivan: 3:42

And that's the real tragedy here. You have two fundamental principles, both from Magna Carta, clause 39, the right to judgment by your peers, and clause 40, the right to prompt justice. And the crisis has reached a point where right now those two rights are pitted directly against each other. As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.