David Lammy has been warned that government plans to axe jury trials for the majority of crimes could undermine free speech.
The Justice Secretary’s proposals have been slammed by campaigners, who say they could make it harder for defendants to use free speech as a defence for “offensive” language.
According to research by the Free Speech Union (FSU), defendants citing free speech were almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in Crown Courts, where juries decide verdicts, than in magistrates’ courts without juries.
The FSU findings comes after notable “hate speech” cases, including that of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael.
The Justice Secretary’s proposals have been slammed by campaigners
|
PAHe was acquitted in 17 minutes by a jury for a Facebook post relating to illegal immigration following the Southport murders.
FSU director Lord Young confirmed the group would be campaigning against the Government’s plans.
He said: “Trial by jury is a bulwark of British liberty and if people charged with speech offences are denied that right, they’re more likely to be convicted.”
The FSU research found that in the decade up to 2025, defendants using free speech as a defence were acquitted in 16 per cent of cases in magistrates’ courts, compared with 28 per cent in Crown Courts.
FSU director Lord Young confirmed the group would be campaigning against the Government’s plans
|
PAIn the year to June 2025, just 14 per cent of defendants were acquitted in magistrates’ courts, while 33 per cent were cleared in Crown Courts.
When juries considered not-guilty pleas in Crown Court speech cases, the acquittal rate was much higher – 75 per cent in the year to June 2025 and 71 per cent on average over the past ten years.
Under the government’s proposals, only defendants facing offences with a possible prison sentence of more than five years, such as murder, rape, serious sexual offences, terrorism, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, and firearms possession, would retain the right to a jury trial.
Magistrates’ powers are also set to increase, with their remit extended from offences carrying a maximum custodial sentence of one year to two years.
BRITAIN’S JUSTICE SYSTEM – READ MORE:
Defendants using free speech as a defence were acquitted in 16 per cent of cases in magistrates’ courts, compared with 28 per cent in Crown Courts (file photo)
|
GETTYShadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “Juries act as a safety valve within the justice system.
“They pool the collective wisdom of 12 citizens and ensure that the law does not stray too far from the values of the people it serves.
“Instead of depriving British citizens of ancient liberties, David Lammy should get his own department in order.
“The right to be tried by our peers has existed for more than 800 years – it is not to be casually discarded forever when the spreadsheets turn red.”
Robert Jenrick said that ‘juries act as a safety valve within the justice system’
|
PAFormer solicitor general for England and Wales Robert Courts KC slammed Mr Lammy’s proposal to scrap juries.
He told GB News: “I’m not in favour of it at all. It’s a terrible idea. It would be an appalling loss for liberty, too, to lose jury trials who’ve been with us for the best part of a thousand years.
“And they work. It’s the absolute cornerstone of political freedom. The simple reason that nobody can make a jury do anything. You can lean on a jury if you wish.
“As Government, they can still acquit. And that’s we’ve seen that hundreds of times over the course of English history.
“So it would be an awful loss from which our political freedom and our judicial system wouldn’t recover.”
