top of page

Why Jury Trials Must Never Be Scrapped — They Are the Bedrock of Justice


By Michael Thompson, Founder – Falsely Accused Network



When over 90% of barristers oppose a reform in criminal justice, we ought to sit up and pay attention.





Sir Brian Leveson’s suggestion to scrap jury trials for all but the most serious cases is nothing short of dangerous. His proposal — to replace the jury with a panel of a judge and two magistrates for offences carrying sentences of up to three years — might be presented as a pragmatic response to a crumbling system, but in reality, it is a constitutional red line that must not be crossed.


Jury trial is not some antiquated tradition — it is a living safeguard. It is ordinary people holding the state to account. It’s the difference between justice and institutionalised bias. For those falsely accused of crimes — particularly domestic abuse, sexual offences, or other emotionally charged allegations — the right to be judged by a group of peers, rather than legal insiders, is vital. It is one of the few protections that gives people even a fighting chance when up against the full weight of the state.


The suggestion that justice would be better served by small panels of legal professionals flies in the face of public confidence and democratic accountability. The Criminal Bar Association rightly warns that such changes would erode trust and increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. This isn’t about ‘efficiency’ — it’s about fairness.


And let’s not pretend this is a small tweak. The reforms being considered would impact sexual offence trials, cases involving violence against women and girls, complex frauds, and “either way” offences — a massive swathe of serious, contested cases. These are precisely the types of trials where juries are needed most.

ree

This isn’t radical reform. It’s desperation dressed up as innovation. Rather than gutting the justice system of its protections, the government should fund more sitting days, fix the buildings, employ experienced criminal judges, and get defendants to court on time. The solutions are practical — not constitutional vandalism.


At Falsely Accused Network, we see every day the emotional and legal devastation caused by false allegations. Many of the men and women we support would never have stood a chance without a jury. Replacing that system with a panel of establishment figures will only worsen outcomes for the innocent.


Sir Brian Leveson himself admits he does not "rejoice" in his proposals. That alone should ring alarm bells.


We urge the government to listen to the legal profession — and the public — and reject any plan that would dismantle the right to trial by jury. Once gone, it won’t be easy to get back.


I recently spoke about the dangers of losing the right to a jury trial on a recent podcast with Sean Parker from Empowering The Innocent see link here -


Michael Thompson

Founder, Falsely Accused Network

📞 Helpline: 0204 538 8788


Comments

bottom of page