Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between Emma Foody and Jim Allister

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

We are getting rid of them in thousands of cases, which will deny to those who are accused in those cases the right that each one of us would claim for ourselves: to be judged by our peers. We are doing it in cases that involve a large sentence. Three years is no trifling sentence—it is a substantial sentence that is life-changing, and yet we are suggesting that we should move away from that cornerstone of justice in all those cases.

[Emma Foody]

I ask the hon. and learned Member two questions. First, does he not accept that magistrates are indeed peers? Secondly, does he agree that 12 months is a pretty considerable, life-changing sentence as it stands?

[Jim Allister]

Judges, no matter how intellectual, erudite or experienced they might be, do not have the life experiences of 12 jurors. I spent my professional life as a junior and senior counsel in the criminal courts of Northern Ireland, and therefore I have substantial experience of appearing in not just jury trials but judge-alone trials, because for decades we had Diplock courts. I can tell the hon. Lady from my experience that if I was charged with an offence, without doubt I would choose the jury rather than the judge alone, because whether we like it or not, the most experienced judge becomes case-hardened. You will get far more empathy, either as a victim of crime or as a person accused of crime, from a jury. Why? Because they have the lived experience and so are likely to show an affinity with you, be you the victim or the accused.

It is an immeasurable advantage in our justice system to have those deciding the facts of a case be those who have the feel for what it is to live in that community and know what it is to have empathy with either the person accused or the victim. They are in a far superior position to some case-hardened judge who has heard it all before and, frankly, cannot deliver the quality of dependable justice. I know from my experience that even many people who were convicted would have said, “Well, at least it was my peers who convicted me. I have more confidence in what they did than what a single judge would do.”

What is a jury? When we abolish juries, we are abolishing not just an established right going back 800 years. We are abolishing a protection against arbitrary power. We are abolishing the honest broker. Who brings a case against an accused? The state. Who is the honest broker in that? The jury. The jury, who have that affinity and that lived experience, are in a far better position to reach a sustainable and credible verdict. In the end, it is about public confidence in our criminal justice system, which matters hugely.

Far more public confidence is generated in our criminal justice system through jury trials than through judge-alone trials. The point was made earlier that around 41% of all summary trials that go to appeal are overturned. What does that tell us? It tells us of how case-hardened some of those who are hearing them are, it tells us of the summary nature and the speed with which some of the cases are heard, and it tells us that an injustice was done in 41% of those cases. Are we in the business of accentuating injustice? Surely not. Surely we are in the business of extracting injustice from our system, and we will do that far stronger and far better through maintaining, not diminishing, jury trials. As the Justice Secretary said, jury trials are indeed the cornerstone. Take away the cornerstone and you have begun to demolish the edifice in which we all have so much pride: our criminal justice system.