Those Who Seek to Scale Back Jury Trials Profoundly Misunderstand Their Authority Over the Constitutional Order
The Labour-led British government is currently attempting to hollow out an ancient pillar of English constitutionalism, trial by jury. Under their planned reforms, trial by jury would survive in England and Wales for certain types of crimes, but its use would be significantly curtailed. For example, according to a government press release issued earlier this month, new “Swift Courts” will assign cases “with a likely sentence of three years or less” to be heard by “a Judge alone.”
The campaign against jury trials, one of the most free-spirited and universally lauded institutions bequeathed to us by the common law tradition, would be baffling in a healthy constitutional regime. But sadly, it is predictable enough in a regime whose political leaders have developed the habit of tinkering with civil liberties as though they were trimming their lawn.
You can support my work with a paid subscription, by clicking here.
Being an ancient institution that evolved gradually over a millennium, a significant restriction of jury trials would have unpredictable effects on the justice system. We simply do not know with any confidence how, in the long run, such a move would alter the incentives of prosecutors, change the pattern of convictions for different crimes, or alter public perceptions of the justice system.
What we do know is that it would constitute a dangerous and completely unnecessary constitutional experiment, eroding one of the most time-honoured bulwarks of civil liberty. Furthermore, it is worth noting that according to an analysis published by the Free Speech Union, drawing on Ministry of Justice data, overall acquittal rates are much higher with juries than with magistrates’ courts (21.6% vs. 11.4%), and this difference also holds specifically for speech-related offences (27.6% vs. 15.9%). Assuming these figures are accurate, citizens will likely be much more vulnerable to prosecution and conviction if the use of jury trials is thrown out or significantly eroded.
Trial by jury has been lauded by generations of learned and respected scholars of law and democracy as a cornerstone of a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose 1835-40 volume Democracy in America offers one of the most incisive of reflections on the pros and cons of modern democracy, opined that “the jury... is the most energetic means of making the people rule, [and] is also the most effective means of teaching it how to rule well.”
An eminent 17th-century English jurist, Sir Edward Coke, insisted that no Englishman could be lawfully condemned “but by the lawful judgment of his peers.” The esteemed 18th-century legal commentator, Sir William Blackstone, likewise described trial by jury as “the glory of the English law” and “the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy,” emphasising its role as a shield between the individual and arbitrary power.
Budding constitutional reformers would do well to pay heed to Lord Patrick Devlin’s warning that “the first object of any tyrant... would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.”
You can support my work with a paid subscription, by clicking here.
If marginal gains in the duration of trials are deemed an adequate justification for tinkering with this bastion of the legal order, then we might as well just go ahead and subject the whole constitutional order to an “efficiency” test: if we can shave a few days or weeks off this or that legal procedure, then why not engage in a bit of constitutional engineering?
But this is a cheap and shallow argument. To begin with, we should not be so sure of our own understanding of the mechanics of such a complex and evolved order, nor should we be so confident that we can predict the short- and long-term impact of our well-intentioned meddling.
Equally importantly, those who bring a revolutionary pick-axe to the constitutional edifice destabilise public expectations about the basic “rules of the game.” In doing so, they open the door to political opportunists who would happily overturn the rules and conventions that keep citizens free in order to advance their own careers or curry favour with party bosses or the fickle tides of public opinion.
These constitution-wreckers have bought into a reckless form of positivism that views the legal system as the handiwork of each new generation of human lawgivers rather than as a hallowed constitutional inheritance, and conceives the legislator as an ambitious constitutional reformer, ever poised to introduce “enlightened” reforms in the longstanding customs of liberty, whether in the name of “efficiency” “progress,” “social justice,” or some other ostensibly noble end. While the seeds of positivism and its contempt for the common law have been in place for centuries, its bitter fruits are now on full display.
The outcome of happy-go-lucky constitutional engineering is that citizens are perpetually vulnerable to political fanaticism. And not just any old fanaticism, but the sort that dismantles or radically alters fundamental constitutional rights such as privacy, freedom of speech, or the right to be tried before one’s peers.
Sadly, the move against jury trials is not an anomaly. Rather, it reflects a growing trend among modern governments and legislators – not only in the United Kingdom, but in many other places – to assert their own authority over the constitutional order in exaggerated and destructive ways.
Instead of recognising that they are standing on the shoulders of giants and acting as humble stewards of an ancient tradition of ordered liberty, whose inner workings have evolved gradually over countless generations, legislators and government ministers have gotten it into their heads that they are can stand majestically above the constitutional order and remake it at will, as one might re-arrange one’s bedroom.
Unfortunately, the citizenry of Western societies, or at least a large portion of it, is in a state of moral stupor and has become complacent about the risks of governmental tyranny. Many are no longer well equipped to distinguish between the arbitrary utterances of a legislator and the longstanding rules of humanity and decency.
The idolisation of positive law and the downgrading of the customary liberties of Western societies came to a head during the pandemic: people were happy to go along with laws that made life hell for their unvaccinated neighbours, just because they were unvaccinated; large segments of the public acquiesced in, or actively supported, these measures, looking on approvingly while police suppressed public protests in the name of “public health”; and people reported their neighbours for the “offense” of having social gatherings in their homes.
Legal systems are meant to set us free, by providing a framework of public order and reaonable expectations within which we can get on with our lives. But they can only do this if they are beholden to a higher law, of the sort that is discovered rather than made by human fiat. This is the sort of law that binds the King and cannot be unmade by the King, as the Magna Carta famously recognises.
Only if citizens believe passionately in a moral code superior to the say-so of legislators and politicians can they find a firm foothold for resisting egregiously unjust and tyrannical laws. But belief in a morality that transcends the will of the legislator is not easy in a culture saturated with moral relativism. We need to recover our confidence in a higher moral law, if we are to reverse the current drift toward legal and political authoritarianism.
The Freedom Blog offers a thoughtful voice in defence of freedom at a time when the pillars of a free society are coming under attack across the West from our very own institutions and governments.
It was born in the shadow of Covid-era censorship and civil liberty violations. It aims to go beyond cheap political slogans, to grasp what it means to live in freedom, and how we can defend a free and flourising way of life in an increasingly ignorant and hostile environment.
If you appreciate my blog posts and the careful work that goes into them, please consider supporting my work with a paid subscription, by clicking here.
My academic profile and publications are listed at my website, davidthunder.com.
Click here to download the preface and introduction to my book, The Polycentric Republic, for free. Click here to purchase the book.
Congratulations on having your essay reprinted today, April 11 2026 in Brownstone.
…….
The text of the U.S. Constitution 7th Amendment: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the RULES OF THE COMMON LAW.”
…..
The text of the 5th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
…..
The text of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
…..
And, finally, the text of the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
…..
So, the American Acts of Congress (*1986* and PREP) that removed vaccine manufacturer liability and setup the “vaccine court” that operate without a jury trial 1) Unconstitutionally denies a plaintiff the right to due process (5th); 2) Unconstitutionally denies a plaintiff the right to a jury trial (7th); 3) Unconstitutionally denies the right of the people, or the several states, to establish their own tort law and pursue material recompense according to common law tradition (10th); and 4) Unconstitutionally usurps the right of the people in these matters in the pretextual process of Congress exercising a real or imagined enumerated power (9th).
…..
All of this is completely obvious, so the only question is: How has this peculiar institution managed to survive challenge for 40 years?
Under common law, we shouldn't have judges, only conveners, who gather the jury. It is judges who should be abolished, not juries. Judges should not have the power to withhold evidence or direct the jury. Democracy Defined Ken d'Oudney. The only present problem with juries, is that what counts as our peers in a multiracial country with massively different cultural values.? The jury was meant to be people like the accused. However, that does not justify abolition, a clear totalitarian power grab.
Judges are easily nobbled, are essentially political appointments, often freemasons or common purpose. They are employees of the state, so the state is prosecutor and judge.