Earlier this year a criminal trial took place without a jury for the first time in an English Crown Court. This was made possible by a change to the law in 2007, one of several key changes in recent years to the way trials are conducted in the UK. The anonymity of witnesses is now enshrined in statute, the family courts have widened their doors to the public, and a series of high profile cases has raised questions about the extent to which the media may negatively influence trial proceedings. Like other changes, the proposal to do without juries in some cases is presented as a practical response to changing circumstances. Does an expansive media environment make impartiality impossible, for example? Or are some cases too complicated for ordinary citizens to understand?

Critics argue that the right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers is essential to justice. The principle that we should be judged by our fellow citizens – people like us – rather than patrician and often aloof judges has long been cherished as the mark of a free society. But is the idea that justice is best arrived at by ‘twelve good men and true’ (or even women) simply unrealistic in trials involving ever-more complicated legal, financial and scientific details? Is justice best left to the experts? Or should society’s notions of a fair trial not be chopped and changed in response to problems faced by our justice system? Should we feel protective over the traditional rights of the courtroom?  Do we need further legislation to control what information reaches a jury, rather than abolishing juries altogether? What changes if any should be made to the jury system? How is the administration of justice changing, and is it still fair?