Introduction
Jury service in England is often described as a cornerstone of liberty. The right to be judged by one’s peers rather than by the subjective will of the state. This principle did not emerge suddenly, nor was it originally democratic in the modern sense.
Instead, it developed gradually from early communal justice in Saxon England, shaped by religious authority, royal power and evolving ideas of freedom protected by the community.
By the time jury trial became established, it reflected centuries of struggle over who should judge, and in whose name, justice should be done.
Saxon England and Communal Justice
In Anglo-Saxon England, justice was fundamentally communal. Law was enforced not by a professional judiciary but by local assemblies such as the hundred courts and shire courts. Groups of local men were required to give sworn statements about disputes, crimes or land ownership.
These men were sometimes referred to as “oath-helpers” or connected to systems such as tithings and the frankpledge. The Witan, or council of wise men, advised kings and played a role in law-making rather than judging individual cases, but the principle remained clear: that truth was established collectively.
This early system was not about weighing evidence as modern juries do, but about reputation, local knowledge and sworn testimony. While crude by modern standards, it embedded the idea that justice arose from the community rather than from a distant authority.
Norman Rule and the Transformation of the Jury
The Norman Conquest of 1066 fundamentally altered English law, but it did not erase communal justice. Instead, Norman rulers adapted it. Royal officials increasingly relied on sworn local men to provide information to the Crown, particularly for taxation and land disputes.
The Domesday Book itself was compiled using sworn inquests. Over time, these inquests evolved into recognisable juries. Importantly, jurors were expected to know the facts of the case, not merely to assess evidence presented in court.
This blurred the line between witness and judge, but reinforced the legitimacy of verdicts rooted in local knowledge rather than royal decree.
Magna Carta and the Principle of Judgment by Peers
Magna Carta in 1215 did not invent jury trial, but it entrenched the principle that free men should not be punished except “by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”.
This clause was a direct response to arbitrary royal justice and abuse of power by officials. Although its immediate beneficiaries were the barons, Magna Carta gave lasting constitutional weight to the idea that judgment must involve one’s peers.
Over the following centuries, this principle widened beyond the nobility and became associated with broader notions of legal fairness and restraint on state power, issues explored further in the Workers of England Union’s jury system series.
Religion, Authority, and the Courts
Medieval justice was closely tied to the Catholic Church. Ecclesiastical courts handled many matters, and divine judgment through ordeals or oath-taking was central.
The Reformation marked a profound shift. Protestantism rejected trial by ordeal and emphasised human reason and conscience. This strengthened secular courts and reinforced the jury as a rational, earthly mechanism for determining truth.
As law separated from theology, juries emerged as a crucial buffer between the individual and both church and crown.
Judgment by Your Peers
By the seventeenth century, particularly after the English Civil War, the jury had become a symbol of liberty. High-profile cases demonstrated that juries could resist political pressure, refusing to convict where laws were unjust or prosecutions oppressive.
Being judged by one’s own community became understood as protection against tyranny. This principle remains vital today, especially for organised workers and Trade Union members, a core concern of the Workers of England Union.
Jury service is not merely a civic duty but a historical safeguard, rooted in centuries of struggle over power, faith and fairness.
Conclusion
Stephen Morris, General Secretary of the Workers of England Union, said:
“For Trade Union members, the erosion of jury trial should ring alarm bells. Being judged by your community has long been a vital protection against state overreach and overbearing employer influence. Weakening jury trial risks concentrating power in institutions that have historically acted against organised workers rather than in its defence.”
For working people across England, defending jury service is inseparable from defending democratic accountability and workplace justice.
