© Getty images
Proposals to reduce jury trials risk trading justice for speed in an overstretched system. Writing in NLJ this week, John Gould of Russell-Cooke LLP examines Sir Brian Leveson’s review, which suggests fewer jury trials, more judge-led hearings and limits for less serious offences
While aimed at tackling delays, Gould questions whether this creates a ‘trading of injustices’—faster outcomes but potentially less reliable verdicts.
Juries remain symbolically vital as ‘the lamp which shows that freedom lives’, yet in practice fewer than 5% of cases involve them. Gould notes the real challenge is chronic underfunding, warning that efficiency alone cannot fix a ‘failing system’. Removing juries may improve throughput but risks undermining public confidence if justice appears diminished.
Ultimately, he argues, reform must balance speed, fairness and legitimacy. Without demonstrable improvement, curbing jury rights could prove too high a price for marginal gains in efficiency.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7bf1005b_1)
