December Café discusses two topics, one very topical
December 2025
The last Café of the year chose two topics to discuss. One concerned the plan to restrict the number of offences which need to go to a jury and the second was a more general question concerning how democracy works.
How do we feel about David Lammy’s proposal to reduce the number of offences needed to go to trial by jury? This procedure has an extremely long history dating back to Magna Carta which refers to no man being punished without the judgement of his peers. The principle may have pre-dated this document in fact.
There were a number present who had served on juries and had a reasonable degree of experience to offer. This cropped up during the debate and for the most part people felt it was time consuming although there were some who found it fulfilling or interesting.
One found that people were reluctant to convict in drug cases. They also found that there was a degree of ’emotional play’ with the jury taking place. Were people selected for service always capable of examining evidence and being objective it was wondered?
A major focus of the debate was the state of the judicial system generally, a topic we have debated before. Was the purpose of the proposal really about reducing the lengthy delays before trials could take place? This could be years it was pointed out and was often to the advantage of defendants who hoped that witnesses would fail to turn up or other problems leading to an acquittal.
Justice delayed was justice denied it was pointed out. Only 3% of cases went to jury trial so was it so important was the inference?
We were reminded that there used to be three magistrates, now there was only one. If we removed more jury trials then more people would be sentenced by just two individuals i.e. the magistrate at first instance and then the judge sitting without a jury. It might be more efficient and quicker even but was it justice?
Another aspect of the debate was the nature of judges. The great majority hailed from a privileged background. Around 60% or more had gone to just 6 of the public schools, then on to Oxford and thence into chambers often via family connections. The suggestion was a profound class and establishment bias and a lack of any experience of ‘real life’. Were these the best people to decide on our justice?
We were reminded of the Birmingham Six whom the justice system manifestly failed over many years of trials and appeals. Master of the Rolls Lord Denning was mentioned who said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further“
Their convictions were quashed after 20 years of imprisonment and they received compensation of around £1 million.
The case of those arrested for alleged criminal damage at Elbit Systems which makes drones for use in Gaza (which the company denies) was mentioned. The initial judge in the case has been replaced by 3 others who are alleged to be more sympathetic to the government’s case appointed. [There is considerable (and astonishing) evidence of collusion between the police and Elbit including video footage being given to the company and stored in their safe not in secure police facility.]
Concern was expressed that this (reduced number of juries) was yet another example of the whittling away of our rights. The series of acts which limited protests and was making it harder and harder to mount or attend demonstrations were mentioned. The right to protest was fundamental and historically has achieved many improvements which to an extent we take for granted today – votes for women for example.
Was this the wrong answer to another problem? was the theme of another part of the discussion. The prison system was in a terrible state with overcrowding, infestation and drug abuse. By removing some rights to a jury trial it might reduce numbers held on remand but would it solve the major problem of a dysfunctional system which has suffered decades of underinvestment? Not for the first time Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge was mentioned and how difficult, nay impossible he and other ministers experienced trying to reform it.
It was connected to the steady increase in sentence lengths which in turn was connected with tabloid mania about any government being seen to be ‘soft on crime’. Attempts at reform just seemed to get nowhere because of this fear by politicians who saw it as career ending.
Another aspect was the ending of legal aid. This was a major problem for those with limited resources trying to seek justice.
Has there been any research into the effectiveness of the jury system and juries themselves? Short answer, almost none largely because the jury room is private and their deliberations secret. [There have been calls for researchers to be allowed into jury deliberations]. So we do not really know how much about them.
There was a suggestion of the use of AI in jury deliberations. Mad? or will we wake up one day to find that it’s happening or is government policy? Let us hope no one in the Justice Dept. is reading this.
What did we think overall? Not a good idea. There were too many worries about government motives, the integrity and background of the judiciary, the ending of an ancient tradition and the wrong answer to another problem.
The second part was a debate around the question How do we improve our political process? There is clearly a degree of despair evident in the public at large about politics, politicians and the process as a whole. No sooner had Labour been elected into power than its popularity has fallen dramatically. This seemed to show a degree of fickleness by voters.
One aspect was the adversarial system which seemed to be about being adversarial for the sake of it someone suggested. It was a lot about getting media attention the inference being that the media was only interested in conflict.
Would compulsory voting make a difference? it was asked with addition of a ‘none of the above’ as one of the choices. This latter suggestion was roundly disagreed with: we should make a choice it was suggested. The country cannot be run by ‘none of the above’.
There was a case made for a well trained civil service along Confucian lines in China. This led to a discussion about the nature of our political leadership. We elect MPs many – the majority even – have had no experience of managing a major enterprise or indeed managing anything. Once elected they can find themselves minister of this that or the other with no experience or training to call on. The ministry may contain thousands of civil servants and a budget of billions.
The select committee system was praised as a major improvement particularly since the whips office lost the power appoint members to it. It was noted however that it did not receive that much publicity which meant it did not get the recognition it deserved. The recent enquiry into Royal wealth was mentioned and how the representatives of the Royal household were extremely reluctant to reveal any details. This raised the issue of transparency particularly around Royal wealth with financial details concerning the Duchy of Cornwall for example shrouded in mystery.
It was claimed the politicians in the Nordic countries were more trusted than ours for reasons unknown. The media perhaps? Maybe it starts in schools with pupils being taught critical thinking and citizenship, a topic we have discussed before.
The current Reith Lectures being delivered by Rutger Bregman was mentioned and his first about the problem of a lack of seriousness by our current crop of politicians was relevant.
This prompted a discussion about tax and the universal belief that we are better off with taxes as low as possible. No politician can argue the opposite or that there is some kind of optimum tax rate. A fundamental issues such as this is reduced to almost mindless claims at elections that ‘my party is going to fix everything but not raise your taxes’.
Should we have a benevolent dictator? A question not debated.
Proportional representation was put forward which did not receive much support. How did they tackle the fundamental issues? How does it solve the low quality of politicians? It almost always led to coalitions which is not the same thing as cooperation.
More subsidiarity was also suggested. This has advantages in leaving local people to decide local issues instead of everything being Whitehall led. But, poor parts of Britain have few resources however much subsidiary they have whereas wealthier areas have plenty that is, it’s a matter of distribution which is what a national government should be about.
A more global issue was mentioned namely that Britain had achieved its wealth via plunder. Were we as a nation living beyond our means? Was there any politician or party capable of facing reality and telling the public what it needs to face up to? An interesting point of view can be found in a recent post to this site What could possibly go wrong?
I am not sure we really cracked this problem although there were interesting points raised. We have a democratic process which we accept as being the least worst system and does enable us to evict politicians who fail. But we don’t seem to be able to say how to make it work better. We stick to electing local MPs who may appear personable and charming but many are seriously lacking in relevant experience, judgement or knowledge of how the business of government works. Some are dishonest and lacking in other ways. When a ‘personable and charming’ MP gets given a ministerial position we seem surprised at their incompetence a fact which was probably obvious from the start. Perhaps much greater rigour at the selection stage – not by the party machine – but by members of the public perhaps possessed with recruitment experience might help.
Next meeting is on Saturday 10th January 2026.
Peter Curbishley
Books mentioned:
Rory Stewart, Politics on the Edge, Jonathan Cape, 2023
Brené Brown, Daring Greatly, Penguin, 2013
Previous posts:
- Democracy Café
- What could possibly go wrong?
- Dissatisfaction with our politicians expressed at latest Democracy Café
- Democracy Café
- Conspiracies: the Five Factor Theory
Thought of joining our committee? We would like more support. Please get in touch if you are interested.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 
Leave a comment