Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.
Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.
Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.
This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.
Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:
“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”
Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.
Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.
Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.
In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.
Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.
Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.
I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.
In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.
Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.
However, there’s a lot more to it than that.
Goodbye, right to appeal
Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.
It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:
I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.
incentivizing guilty pleas
The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:
Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)
Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.
A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.
But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.
Long-term Propaganda
The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.
Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.
We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.
The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.
This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.
It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.
More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.
Hate speech convictions
It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.
Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.
Prison reform
Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.
In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.
Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.
In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.
Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?
Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.
“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)
What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?
Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.
Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.
The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)
It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.
In summary
So, what can we conclude?
Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:
- Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)
- No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.
- Incentivised guilty pleas.
- No automatic right of appeal.
- Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.
In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.
But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.
And the start of a criminal justice system.
Read the full article here