The Jury System: Past, Present, and the Battle for Its Future

Over the coming weeks, the Workers of England Union will be publishing a three-part series examining one of the oldest and most important foundations of democratic justice: the jury system.

For most people in England, juries are something we hear about, occasionally get summoned for, and rarely think much about. Yet the jury system has been under growing pressure, with real consequences for working people across England.

Why the jury system matters to working people

The jury system is not an abstract legal curiosity. It is one of the few remaining areas where ordinary people still hold direct power over the justice process.

When juries function properly, they act as a safeguard against government overreach, unchecked authority and injustice. They help ensure that decisions affecting liberty, employment and community life are not left solely in the hands of institutions.

When the system begins to weaken, it is local communities and working people who feel the impact first.

Part one: The historical role of juries

The jury system has been a cornerstone of English justice for centuries. Emerging in medieval England, it was designed to act as a check on the power of monarchs and magistrates.

Early jurors were often local landowners or respected community figures who brought practical knowledge and common sense into the courtroom. Over time, juries evolved into a symbol of fairness, impartiality and democratic participation.

Despite reforms intended to improve inclusivity and efficiency, the jury remains one of the few areas where citizens actively participate in justice rather than merely observe it.

Part two: Proposals to reduce the role of juries

The second article in this series will examine proposals linked to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy’s 2017 review of racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Among the most controversial suggestions were those affecting juries directly. These included increasing judicial discretion over jury selection, exploring reduced jury sizes, and streamlining jury processes in certain cases.

Supporters argue that these measures could improve consistency, reduce bias and speed up trials. Critics warn that the practical effect would be fewer jurors, more judicial control, and a weakening of one of the last democratic safeguards within the justice system.

Reducing jury participation hands greater power to the judiciary and moves justice away from the principle that it should be delivered by the public, not just to the public.

Part three: Why these changes are so damaging

The final article will explore why altering the jury system risks undermining public confidence in justice.

Juries embody collective judgment, diversity of experience and democratic legitimacy. Reducing their role risks creating a perception that justice is increasingly controlled by elites rather than peers.

This erosion of participation weakens accountability and threatens to reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for working people who already feel disconnected from decision-making structures.

The WEU position on democratic justice

The Workers of England Union has long supported fair, transparent systems that include worker and citizen input. Weakening juries runs counter to these principles.

Replacing shared responsibility with top-down decision-making diminishes the voices of working people, which are a cornerstone of a democratic society and essential to protecting worker rights.

Statement from the General Secretary

Stephen Morris, General Secretary of the Workers of England Union, said:

“Our aim is simple. The WEU wants to give our members a clear, accessible and honest look at what is happening, why it matters and what is at stake.

Whether you have served on a jury or never been called, the future of the system affects your rights, our communities and the integrity of justice in England.

By understanding the past, questioning the present and preparing for the future, we can ensure that justice remains something done with the people, not to the people.”