New research reveals how curbing jury trials could disproportionately impact ethnic minority victims and defendants

DCM Editorial Summary: This story has been independently rewritten and summarised for DCM readers to highlight key developments relevant to the region. Original reporting by The Conversation, click this post to read the original article.

If you’re following current debates about criminal justice reform in England and Wales, you should know there’s growing concern about proposals to limit jury trials. Rooted in a centuries-old tradition, jury trials are seen by many as a cornerstone of democratic justice. Critics argue that removing them for certain cases won’t solve the court backlog and could instead threaten fairness. For people of colour, jury trials often offer their best shot at an impartial hearing in a system widely seen as biased. Research shows Black, Asian, and minority ethnic defendants are more likely to take their chances at trial rather than accept plea deals, which they believe are unfairly stacked against them.

You should also consider the data that reveals jury trials often result in better outcomes for Black defendants than judge-only trials. A jury of peers tends to bring in a more diverse range of perspectives, which can challenge and dilute individual biases. According to analysis, groups such as all-white juries are significantly more likely to convict Black defendants, while juries with even one Black member are less likely to do so. This suggests that retaining and diversifying jury panels could help make trials fairer for everyone – not just the accused, but also victims from minority backgrounds.

This issue hits home particularly hard for families like Dea-John Reid’s. Dea-John was a Black teenager killed in what many saw as a racially charged attack. His family believes lack of diversity in the jury that delivered the verdict limited the panel’s ability to see the racial implications of the case. If you’re thinking about justice from the perspective of victims, not just defendants, it’s clear that more inclusive juries matter. Research tied to Dea-John’s case calls for juries to reflect the communities they serve, and for reforms to focus on diversity rather than reduction in trial by jury rights.

You may be surprised to learn how public opinion leans on this issue. In a recent survey, three-quarters of people in the UK still support the right to a jury trial. More than half believe diverse juries lead to fairer outcomes, and many think that participating in jury service is especially important for people of colour. Interestingly, trust in the judiciary remains lower among minority communities, reinforcing the importance of having juries that better represent society.

If you’re looking for genuine solutions to inequality in the justice system, the evidence suggests it’s not about cutting back on jury trials but improving them—especially by boosting diversity among jurors and judges alike. Any real attempt to deliver equality in the courtrooms of England and Wales needs to start with ensuring that your voice, and voices like yours, are part of the decision-making process.