How do you want to be judged?
Keeping the humanity at the heart of our judicial system
There is a legal principle called “jury equity” in the UK that means juries are allowed to acquit someone on their conscience. There was a landmark case last year that tested this in The High Court. It was upheld. I covered that case. I followed it really closely, so I can say with full confidence that this is correct in law. Yet yesterday, in a court in Leeds, a jury passed a note to the judge that said, “As a matter of conscience we are finding it difficult to come to a verdict. What should we do?” The judge told them, “You have all taken an oath or affirmation to try this case on the evidence, not your conscience.”
The defendant was found guilty.
The image above is of Trudi Warner outside The Royal Courts of Justice moments after a High Court judge had upheld the principle of jury equity in her case in 2024.
To be judged by a jury of your peers is a basic human right. Ask yourself: If you were in the dock, would you want to be judged by your peers? Or, would you rather be judged by a single individual who has been appointed by The Judicial Appointments Commission, and sanctioned by a representative of The State, the Lord Chancellor?
Juries are allowed to vote “not guilty” even if they think the defendant has committed the crime because they believe the law is unjust. Not all laws are just laws. In some cases not all laws are just laws when you add the context. The principle of jury equity has been in existence since the 1600s. For hundreds of years the judiciary has operated with this tension in place whereby the judge can advise the jury on the law and make recommendations, but the jury still retains the power to make the decision that they feel is the right one. This can sometimes lead to perverse outcomes, but what it does is put ordinary people at the heart of the judicial system. If as jurors we lose that right then we may as well start putting some cases in front of an AI judge and save ourselves a ton of time and money. “Did the defendant sit in the road and refuse to move when the police placed a condition on their protest?” “Yes” “OK, guilty.”
We are living through enormous political turmoil right now. The post-war international order is unravelling in front of our eyes. The climate crisis is no longer something we can afford to bury our heads in the sand about. We have to accept that the world as we knew it is changing. We have to get comfortable with the uncertainty that this brings. As we navigate this change together, one of the most precious things we need to hold onto is our humanity. Let us not remove the humanity from our judicial process. We can do this by making sure everyone in the UK knows that a jury has the right to acquit someone on their conscience. Then, if they are one day called up to be a juror, they don’t have to pass a note to the judge like the jury in Leeds yesterday. They will know their rights already and can make their own decision as to whether to find someone guilty or not guilty.
Find out more about my documentary that explores this issue, The Line We Crossed.