Judges are perfectly capable of handling the trials backlog

The chorus of outrage that has greeted David Lammy's plan to curb the right to trial by jury is predictable, but rather extreme.

- By JONATHAN SUMPTION

We have heard that juries are bastions of our liberty, that they are key elements of our democracy, and that judges are agents of the police state. Much of this is extravagant, and some of it is just humbug. The reality is that there is much to be said for trial by jury, but also much to be said against it.

The main point to be made in favour is that the use of juries has strong public support. Rightly or wrongly, the public believe that they bring an element of common sense and down-to-earth wisdom to a criminal trial, which might otherwise be lacking. The idea of citizen participation is attractive. It makes people feel that the criminal justice system is, in an important sense, theirs. This matters, because public confidence in the work of the criminal courts is vital, and a reverence for juries is part of that.

However, there is a high price to be paid for a jury trial, not just in terms of efficiency but in terms of justice. The main problem is that juries do not give reasons for their verdicts, and can hardly be asked to. Writing a reasoned judgment is a skill that takes time and training, and anyway, a jury may have up to 12 different reasons. Under the current law in England, it is actually illegal for jurors to disclose their reasons.

As a matter of instinct, it seems inherently unjust that anyone should be convicted of an offence that may bring them to the prison gate, by a tribunal that does not need to say why. This is not just sentiment. Without reasons, we cannot have a proper appeals system.