Criticising m’learned friends has been a risky undertaking since a certain newspaper described a few beaks as ‘enemies of the people’ during the kerfuffle about Europe a few years back. In the age of populism, you are either a defender of the rule of law or an incipient fascist accusing an honest judge of being an ‘ex-Olympic fencer’.

It is therefore with some trepidation that I’d like to suggest the government’s plans to restrict jury trials might not in fact signal the end of democracy. An absence of 12 angry men (or indeed women) at the trial of Burglar Bill probably won’t ‘break the increasingly thin connection between the state and ordinary people’, leading to rising ‘fears of tyrannical governments’, as has been claimed by Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association.

It is with some trepidation that I’d like to suggest the government’s plans to restrict jury trials might not in fact signal the end of democracy

Karmy-Jones’ response has been rather typical of her trade since the reform proposals were conveniently leaked last week, in a move that provoked the fury of everyone who has ever opened a copy of Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law. Even with Justice Secretary David Lammy retreating to the safety of milder recommendations from Brian Leveson, the hysteria has barely died down.

In brief, Lammy is proposing the creation of ‘swift courts’, which will handle what are currently ‘either way’ cases triable by jury or magistrates, where the sentence is likely to be three years or less. Juries will........

© The Spectator