800 years of British constitution destroyed by David Lammy with no democratic mandate
First we had political prisoners, then two tier justice but now Lammy takes us back hundreds of years where a guilty verdict was decreed by the local Lord with no jury.
I always had a fear that after David Lammy’s numerous rants regarding reparations, he would persuade the Starmer government to pay trillions to other countries, despite all the facts contravening his argument.
But his announcement to remove the right to trial by jury took me by surprise for most criminal offences is not just a policy change tinkering around the edges; its a full on assault on one of the most fundamental and long standing cornerstones in the British constitution.
The Labour government has zero mandate for this change; it was not in their manifesto, and figures like David Lammy have previously argued for the importance of jury trials but now they are happy to roll back our rights over 800 years. They screamed against any attempts by others to take the right away, intending to remove it themselves only when they had appointed judges they felt they could politically trust.
A brief history of justice
Our constitutional history is built on a long struggle against oppression. After the Norman invasion in 1066, the country was ruled by oppressive Norman military men. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166, introduced a primitive form of trial, moving away from the barbaric ‘trial by ordeal’ where a person was simply guilty if the local Lord declared it so.
Through a long continuous struggle against tyranny, we finally secured the right to trial by jury in 1215. This right has endured for over 800 years and remains our fundamental safeguard against tyranny, dictatorship, and the evils of fascism and communism.
Historically, this right covered serious crimes such as treason, murder, arson, robbery, rape, and forgery, the very offenses we still consider the most serious today.
The danger of state employees as judges
The core principle of the jury system is simple: You should never be found guilty by an employee of the state. Judges, who are employees of the state (now government), receive salaries and pensions from the government. The historical fear is that state employees are too susceptible to corruption or political influence, especially when sitting alone.
Judges must commit to DEI ideology
With the government now withdrawing the right to trial by jury, this fear has intensified by how judges are selected and promoted. The requirement for judges to demonstrate a commitment to Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) which is part of what is known as woke ideology held, is highly concerning.
Judges who genuinely believe in these ideologies may pose a threat if you are perceived as an ‘enemy’ of that ideology. This has been experienced recently with what is perceived as two tier justice from many a judge who has also expressed political activism. Equally there are also those who simply give lip service to these mandates to secure their jobs are equally as dangerous, as they may prioritise their career security over delivering a fair verdict, even if they privately disagree with the state’s position.
The current proposal is shocking because the right to a jury trial has long been accepted by the legal establishment as settled law.
Lord Develin (1956): Observed that it was not possible to say anything ‘very novel or very profound’ about trial by jury because its existence was so completely accepted.
Blackstone (17th Century): Called the jury the “sacred bulwark of the nation securing our liberty.”
Lord Camden: Declared it the “foundation of our free constitution.”
Modern Jurists: Have affirmed the jury trial as the safeguard against oppression and dictatorship and the “lamp that shows that freedom lives.”
Our freedoms flow directly from the right to trial by jury, alongside the right to vote. It is our greatest constitutional achievement.
Thanks Tony Blair
Tony Blair made the first major assault by abolishing the system of three lay magistrates (non state employed citizens) for lesser offenses, replacing them with a single District Judge (a salaried state employee).
This new announcement appears to remove the right to a jury for almost everything except the most serious crimes (murder, manslaughter, or rape).
If this goes ahead, most criminal trials will be decided by a single state-employed judge who has demonstrated ideological commitment to the DEI agenda. These are people whose relationship with objective truth is already questionable (as evidenced by, for example, their approach to defining gender).
This is open tyranny. We must fight back. We must demonstrate a healthy distrust of the state and take action; first tell your MP how you feel, second Petition the King.