Sir Edward Leigh

I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting. The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote: “Each jury is a little parliament.” The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental. As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.