British citizens may soon lose the 1,000-year-old right to a trial by jury – a change that could have devastating effects on free speech rights and should serve as a warning for Americans.
British Justice Secretary David Lammy announced earlier this month that England and Wales will eliminate a defendant’s right to a trial by jury for all crimes that will “likely” carry a sentence of less than three years. Lammy argues a change is necessary to speed up the trial process and clear a backlog of 78,000 pending criminal cases, which could grow to 100,000 cases in the coming years.
As BBC News reported, Lammy initially wanted to scrap jury trials for crimes likely to result in a sentence of up to five years. But he retreated to three years amid backlash after the initial proposal leaked to the press.
Lammy is not alone in supporting this troubling idea. Also, according to BBC, “Earlier this year, retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the government ends jury trial[s] for many serious offences, saying they could be dealt with by a judge alone or sitting with two magistrates.”
But the idea is raising alarm among free speech advocates, who warn that getting rid of the right to trial by jury will only increase the United Kingdom’s attacks on free expression.
As AMAC Newsline previously reported, British officials have sought to harshly punish individuals who publicly break with liberal orthodoxy, specifically those who criticize mass migration and question transgender ideology. British citizens have also been arrested and prosecuted for silently praying outside abortion clinics and reading the Bible aloud in public. Astonishingly, an average of 30 people are now arrested every single day in the United Kingdom for posting content online that is deemed “offensive.” In one viral case from this past August, a British woman was put in jail for 31 months for posting one tweet that she quickly deleted, criticizing mass migration – a longer sentence than some convicted rapists and pedophiles have received in the U.K.
In many instances where British citizens are arrested and prosecuted for exercising free speech, jury trials are their only hope for real justice. Now, under the guise of cleaning up court backlogs, British authorities are aiming to let activist judges unilaterally decide the fate of defendants.
“We must not forget that this government has shown little regard for free speech since taking office,” the Free Speech Union warned in a December 2 essay. “This policy is just the latest illustration of the contempt they hold for this ancient liberty.”
The group notes that the right to a trial by jury dates back to at least 995 in Britain. The crucial importance of this right was reaffirmed in the 1215 Magna Carta, which formed the basis not just for the English justice system, but the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well.
The Free Speech Union found that juries are far more likely to acquit people of alleged speech crimes than judges – a finding supported by the personal experience of the group’s members.
“Trial by one’s peers is often the final safeguard against an increasingly authoritarian cancel-culture mob,” the group explained. “When numerous members of the Free Speech Union have faced criminal charges simply for speaking out, juries have consistently rejected the overreach of zealous prosecutors.”
In one shocking example, officials tried to prosecute a veteran, Jamie Michael, who posted a Facebook video critical of illegal immigration. He spent 17 days in jail awaiting trial, but a “jury took just 17 minutes to unanimously find him not guilty.”
American free speech scholar Jonathan Turley has similar concerns.
“Expressing concerns over the decline of Western cultural values is now treated as an admission of ‘right-wing ideology,’ warranting investigation,” Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “In April, the Times of London reported that police are making some 12,000 arrests per year over online posts.”
He predicted the ruin of free speech if the protections afforded by a trial by jury are eliminated.
As both Turley and the Free Speech Union have noted, Lammy himself – the same man who now wants to trample the basic rights of his citizens – once warned about the dangers of abolishing jury trials. “In 2020, Mr. Lammy stressed that jury trials were a bulwark against government abuse and a guarantor of justice, that they acted as ‘a filter for prejudice,’” Turley wrote. He called on Parliament to reject the proposal.
“If Parliament doesn’t listen, we’ll see the U.K. regress closer to an earlier, more oppressive state in which citizens are subjects, not the source, of British justice,” he warned.
Britain’s attempt to limit jury trials should be a warning shot for the United States as well. If a nation that prides itself on Magna Carta and a millennium of common law can so casually discard trial by jury, Americans should have no illusions about how fragile liberty truly is. Once governments decide that efficiency matters more than accountability, the slide from free citizens to managed subjects accelerates quickly – and history shows it is far easier to surrender these rights than to reclaim them.
Matt Lamb is a contributor for AMAC Newsline and an associate editor for The College Fix. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA. He previously interned for Open the Books. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, LifeSiteNews, Human Life Review, Headline USA, and other outlets. The opinions expressed are his own. Follow him @mattlamb22 on X.
