Robertson KC Criticises Jury Trial Restrictions, Courts Bill
Summary
The Bar Council published Geoffrey Robertson KC's critique of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which proposes restricting jury trials in England and Wales. Robertson argues the Bill would worsen court delays, erode constitutional protections, and disproportionately affect certain defendants. The paper traces the historical significance of jury trials and recommends alternative measures to address court backlogs without diminishing trial by jury.
What changed
Geoffrey Robertson KC published a critical analysis through the Bar Council examining the Courts and Tribunals Bill's proposed restrictions on jury trials. The paper argues the Bill misinterprets the Leveson recommendations and could paradoxically increase court delays by requiring additional time for preliminary hearings and detailed judgments. Robertson contends the government has already addressed systemic pressures through increased funding, judicial appointments, and legal aid improvements.
Legal professionals and criminal defendants should note Robertson's argument that certain categories of cases—such as those involving lesser maximum sentences or politically sensitive matters—could lose jury trial protections under the proposed regime. While this remains a critique rather than enacted policy, it signals significant professional opposition to the Bill's jury provisions and may influence parliamentary debate.
What to do next
- Monitor legislative progress of Courts and Tribunals Bill regarding jury trial provisions
Archived snapshot
Apr 15, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
To coincide with this week’s committee stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which threatens to significantly restrict jury trials, the Bar Council is publishing a polemical attack on the proposal by Geoffrey Robertson KC, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers.
In his treatise ‘ For Mercy’s Sake ’, Mr Robertson explains how the government has overlooked the constitutional importance of trial by jury – to stand up independently against the state and to extend mercy to defendants who deserve it. He suggests that the Bill will work to worsen delays in the court system and recommends alternative measures that can eliminate them.
Mr Robertson’s report traces the history of jury trials and their place in the unwritten constitution. It digs deeply into the new Bill with some surprising results. For example, under its regime, Clive Ponting could not have been tried by a jury because his Official Secrets Act prosecution had a maximum of two-years imprisonment. Peter Mandleson and Andrew Mountbatton-Windsor, if they were ever to be prosecuted, could lose their right to jury trial both because their hypothetical trials would be “long” and probably “complex”.
In the report, Mr Roberston sets out the additional court time that could be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of the time for judges to write detailed judgments and time for preliminary hearings to determine likely sentence, as well as allocation proceedings.
He argues: “Once Leveson is seen for what it requires of court time and resources, jury removal may well be a cure worse than the disease... The Bill has been driven by Leveson’s somewhat exaggerated claim that unless jury trial is largely scrapped there is a real danger that the entire criminal justice system will collapse. This is not in fact a real danger, and in any event the government has already moved to inject more funds, to appoint more judges, to scrap the austerity era mistake of capping court hours, to bolster legal aid and so on. There is no danger of collapse, but there is a serious problem of court delays, which can be redressed in ways other than by diminishing trial by jury.”
Bar Council Chair, Kirsty Brimelow KC, said: “I hope many MPs will read this profound and professional analysis and stop the jury-wrecking parts of the Bill in its tracks.
“The Bar Council is the forceful opponent of government plans to curb trial by jury. In the debate so far, we have been concerned that the history and value of trial by jury has not been fully appreciated. Geoffrey Robertson KC has written an authoritative paper on juries and the Courts and Tribunals Bill for the Bar Council, pro bono. He is the founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, which is my chambers as well as the former professional home of great lawyers who entered politics.”
Geoffrey Robertson KC said: “This Bill – and the thinking upon which it is based – ignores not only the superiority of the jury as a fact finding tribunal over a bench of magistrates or a judge sitting alone, but its constitutional importance in having the power to act from its own conscience in political cases and in particular its role as a dispenser of mercy to defendants who deserve it and would otherwise be dealt with cruelly by strict application of the law to punish them. Labour is taking an axe to a piece of English heritage, one part of a criminal justice system which unlike the others, is actually trusted by most people.”
About Geoffrey Robertson KC
Mr Robertson has himself defended in many celebrated trials, going back to Oz and Gay News and Salman Rushdie in the 1970s and he led Keir Starmer in Privy Council cases for men facing the death penalty. He acted for Michael Foot when he sued Rupert Murdoch personally for libel, winning a six-figure sum in settlement and has, more recently, succeeded in his defence of Lula in a UN Court, securing his release from prison and eventual presidency of Brazil. He served as a Recorder in London and as a UN appeal judge, President of its war crimes court in Sierra Leone. He has written a number of books on international law and on British history.
Mr Robertson was the lone silk when Doughty Street Chambers was established in 1990. It now has 50 and with 100 junior barristers all specialising in human rights law. After three of his members became government ministers, he joked that “Doughty Street has become Labour’s equivalent of Eton for the Tory Cabinet”.
Find out more about the Bar Council's Justice needs juries campaign
Related resources
Juryless trials ‘not the answer’ to court crisis, barristers warn
- 6 February 2025
- Press release
Government’s proposal puts magistrates' courts at ‘high risk’ Bar Council warns as backlog reaches record high
- 27 March 2026
- Press release
Leveson report: diversion welcome but no need to curtail trial by jury, warns Bar Council
- 9 July 2025
- Press release See more resources
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Bar Council.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.