The ‘hallowed’ practice of trial by jury could be under threat following a ruling by Lord Chief Justice Judge requiring the trial of four men accused of armed robbery to be heard solely by a judge.

The judgement of the 17th June relied on a section from the Criminal Justice Act (2003) which introduced legal scenarios where juries were unsuitable. Lord Judge based his decision, concerning the future trial of the 2004 Heathrow robbers, on Section 44 of this Act, stipulating that ‘tampering’ of jurors was ‘substantial’ enough to ‘threaten the interests of justice’.

Tampering in this case was deemed severe due to previous complications in the trial and the escalating cost of police protection for the jurors’ families. The men involved have already been to court three times. The first two juries were discharged after failing to reach a verdict, and the third thrown out after severe intimidation of jurors. The full cost of a fifth trial procuring adequate police protection for jurors could reach an estimated £1.5 million.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the rights and freedoms embodied in trial by jury are valuable enough to deserve improvements to juror’s protection. David Howarth, Liberal Democrat Shadow Justice Secretary said that:

“We must not let thugs and robbers bully us into relinquishing one of the greatest protections of our freedom.”

Human Rights groups such as Justice have stated their opposition to the decision, believing that “trial by one’s peers is an essential safeguard for fundamental rights, and that it should be retained for all serious cases”. Similarly the Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits of a system Lord Devlin described as “the lamp that shows freedom lives,” and believe that:

“Trial by jury has been a cornerstone of British justice for hundreds of years. It is a dark day indeed when we forsake it because we no longer feel we can protect juries”.

First clearly recognisable in Henry II’s “Assize of Clarendon”, trial by 12 men was more formally codified as a ‘right’ in Magna Carta of 1215. The document decreed that:

“No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned…. but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.”

Isabelle Sankey of Liberty, stresses the importance of maintaining juries for serious cases. In Sankey’s words, “The right to jury trial is not just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that one class of people doesn’t sit in judgment over another.”

The Liberal Democrats believe wholeheartedly that the judiciary system should be more- not less representative of the people. Simon Hughes MP, as Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman during early proposals for judge-only trials, concluded that jury verdicts carried substantial legitimacy in the eyes of the public:

“It is highly unacceptable that professionals are going to be tried by the professionals, that the white-collar offender is going to be tried by the white collar professional judge.”

Essentially the principle at stake is a lot greater than the cost of the police time required for jury protection.