Palestinian protest trials underline the importance of juries - Yorkshire Post Letters

Last month at Bristol Crown Court, the case against Kwabena Devonish was concluded. In 2023 she had attended a rally in support of Palestine in Cardiff and was facing charges of ‘Inviting or Expressing Support’ for a terrorist organisation. It took the jury less than two hours to find the defendant ‘not guilty’ by a unanimous verdict. Given the overwhelming view of the jury, it is clear that the case should never have been brought to trial.

In 1215, King John was obliged to sign the ‘Magna Carta’ which, amongst its many provisions, introduced the principle that ‘free men must face a lawful judgement by their peers’. In other words, the introduction of ‘Trial by Jury’. The signing of the charter was to limit the arbitrary powers of the monarchy. A polite way of saying to stop state repression.

The current Labour Government claims that the proposal to remove the right to a jury trial is intended to clear the backlog of cases which have built up in the criminal justice system – even though the backlog was not caused by the jury system. However, there is a consensus (outside of Government) that reducing the use of juries will not have any noticeable effect on reducing the backlog. The professionals in the justice system agree. The Bar Council says that “…it would make no difference to the backlog”. This is also the view of the Criminal Bar Association. The proposals have also united all other political parties from left to right; The Conservatives, Reform, Liberal Democrats and The Greens, all oppose the changes.

The Bill’s main proponent, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy seems to have had a remarkable change of view. He conducted a review of the justice system in 2017. He has said that “criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”, and that they “act as a filter for prejudice”. He also comments that juries are “Britain’s greatest gift to the world...as rights are eroded abroad, as democracy retreats in too many places, I will do everything in my power to defend those values”. A remarkable turnaround indeed.

The Government says that Canada is a model for its changes and they work there. It fails to point out that in Canada an accused person has the right to a trial by jury if they choose – the UK Government’s provisions will have no such right.

So, if the Government’s reasons are not truthful, we must seek out what their genuine intentions are – and here we must go back to the trial of Kwabena Devonish; we must also consider the acquittal by jury of the Palestine Action activists who took action against the Israeli based arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems; we must also consider the more than 2,000 protestors who face trial for supporting a terrorist organisation because they peacefully held up placards stating “I oppose Genocide, I Support Palestine Action”.

In this latter case, I do not believe that there is a jury anywhere in the country that will uphold these charges (and the Government knows that). The Government’s unfathomable mania with pursuing those who support the Palestinian cause and oppose genocide was well illustrated by their obsessive pursuance of the music group Kneecap, which went well beyond what any sensible person might think was reasonable – and which cost a significant amount of money which could have been used to help reduce the backlog.

Juries are a significant bulwark against the potential for state repression. We should be very concerned about a Government who seems to be hell bent on removing one of our fundamental rights and safeguards.