Juries want fairness in court and don't just obey the government. That's why ministers are attacking them | Michael Mansfield

"A jury of 12 randomly chosen individuals has long been regarded as a vital bulwark against the excesses of government, the threats posed to basic human rights by oppressive legislation and, of course, arbitrary governance. It provides a constitutional and democratic safeguard unlike any other."

"This move is not because juries are unfit for purpose or inherently unfair. Rather it is the opposite: juries are conscientious and return verdicts that are inconvenient and challenge government, thereby reflecting a sense of justice and fairness."

"The English criminal jury system was developed and honed over the course of eight centuries. It has become the envy of the world as one of the fairest ways to determine guilt or innocence."

The article critiques Labour's policy reversals and their erosion of democratic institutions, particularly focusing on the government's proposal to cut jury trials in half. Juries, developed over eight centuries, serve as vital constitutional safeguards against government overreach and protect fundamental human rights. The reduction is not justified by jury unfitness but rather reflects government frustration with jury verdicts that challenge authority and reflect justice principles. This move coincides with successive governments restricting protest rights and free speech through legislation. The article argues this represents a dangerous pattern of dismantling core democratic institutions for opportunistic reasons, threatening the integrity of both government and democracy itself.

Read at www.theguardian.com