The United Kingdom’s courts are in crisis. Britain has been a model for a sound justice system since the 12th century, when local panels were first formalized to investigate crimes and reach agreed-upon verdicts. The great Magna Carta of 1215, the charter of English liberties, further guaranteed the rights of Britons to justice. Trial by jury has been the cornerstone of that justice. So, what dilemma could be so dire for the British that they would consider reducing the rights that have been in place for ages? Let’s consider the conundrum.
The Crown Court, which hears the most serious crimes in England and Wales, is currently drowning in a backlog of 78,000 cases, which will increase to 100,000 by 2028 if action isn’t taken to bring about reform. That backlog has more than doubled since 2019 (put a pin in that; we’ll come back to it). This means that a suspect being charged with an offense today may not reach trial until 2030. Six out of 10 victims of rape are said to be withdrawing from prosecutions because of delays. This is creating an emergency situation, as the pileup is having a devastating effect on the lives of victims and witnesses seeking justice, leaving defendants in limbo, and undermining overall confidence in the justice system.
As usual, politicians are pointing fingers at the other side, with the Labour Party blaming the previous Conservative government for the backlog. Whether or not they inherited the problem is irrelevant; the problem remains. Others have blamed closures during the pandemic, a 2022 strike by public defense lawyers over pay, and a Conservative government policy to cut costs by limiting the number of days courts could sit.
Might I suggest one glaringly obvious fact that has doubled the backlog to lead to this precipice?
A site called Migration Watch UK has multiple charts demonstrating migration trends in England over the years. Not surprisingly, right after COVID, immigration in the UK skyrocketed due to the liberalization of the migration system in 2020. Coinciding with that is the rise in migration from non-EU countries after COVID. Migration from South and East Asia (primarily Pakistan) increased significantly, with noticeable rises from the Middle East and a sevenfold increase in visas granted to sub-Saharan Africans. I wonder why there has been an increase in rapes, crime in general, and anti-Semitism? If you import Third World Muslims, you will get Third World Islamic behavior.
So, reforms were called for to address the crisis they had created, and David Lammy, the justice secretary, was tasked with implementing them. Lammy proposed “swift courts” for defendants facing a likely prison sentence of three years or less (though his original proposal was five years or less), in which judges alone would decide guilt or innocence. Jury trials would continue for more serious crimes, including rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, human trafficking, grievous bodily harm, and the most serious drug offenses. Obviously, the proposed changes would have to be passed by Parliament to be enacted, and that already seems unlikely, as many in the Commons have labeled the ideas “too far,” a “massive mistake,” and the “end of jury trial.”
Lammy’s proposals had jumped “from keyhole surgery to amputation,” complained Alex Chalk, who served as the previous Conservative government’s justice secretary. “He’s gone from making an incremental change, which could be justified on the facts, to something which is a radical incursion into the right of trial by jury.”
The problem with his statement is that the vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in lower-tier magistrate courts rather than considered by juries. More than 82% of ongoing cases in England and Wales are being tried in magistrate courts. Chalk may be overreacting, and the reforms may not be as scary as he’s making them out to be. The BBC explains, “There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown Court. Of those, three out of 10 result in trials. The reforms appear to mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury.”
Whether or not you have a trial by jury doesn’t seem to make a difference here. As Fellow Labour backbencher Stella Creasy pointed out, jury trials only accounted for 3% of cases. “It’s hard to see how this measure … will address that backlog,” she said. That might be too much common sense for some people. Kirsty Brimelow, vice chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, agreed that jury-trial reduction wouldn’t help the problem: “The delays are not caused by juries,” she said, “but by underinvestment and cuts to investment in the criminal justice system.”
While throwing more money at the emergency may be the Band-Aid that temporarily triages and keeps the British justice system from dying at the moment, it really needs to address the underlying illness of mass immigration, or it will continue to fester and get worse.
Here’s my reform proposal: Start deporting criminal illegal aliens, stop arresting and jailing British citizens for memes or comments on X, and you’ll clear out your backlog. That will allow you to prosecute and jail the real criminals who have been terrorizing your women and girls without consequence.
