Dear Catherine,
My name is George Harold Millman; I am a writer and social justice campaigner based in your constituency, and I write about politics under the blog name The Rebel Without A Clause. You probably remember me, as we have met a number of times, and my partner Owen was one of your fellow candidates in the 2024 General Election. Both of us have fond memories of your kindness and encouragement, so I hope very much that you'll be with me on the very important matter I'm going to write to you about.
As I expect you know, the group who in August 2024 infiltrated the Elbit Systems factory in my home town of Bristol, popularly known as the Filton Six, were within the last week acquitted by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court of most of the criminal acts they had been charged with. I think if we are not to beat around the bush, we must both acknowledge that this verdict is somewhat inconvenient for the Government, as its case for proscribing the campaign group Palestine Action in July last year was largely based on this particular case. Your Labour colleague Yvette Cooper, who at the time was Home Secretary and is now Foreign Secretary, commented at the time that the logic behind the proscription would become clear throughout this trial.
I myself am opposed to the Palestine Action proscription and have done my best to stand against it. I don't want to debate that with you just now because I know that there are ongoing legal challenges to it, as well as a number of hunger strikes taking place by people imprisoned as a result, and I wouldn't want to prejudice the outcome of that. However, one thing I really hope we can agree on is that the verdict reached by the jury at Woolwich Crown Court was legal, and taken after having seen far more of the detailed minutiae of the evidence than either you or I have. If there's any doubt about that, I very much recommend Jonathan Cook's analysis of the case (if you're more of a listener, the audio version is narrated by the journalist Matthew Alford), as well as the defence speech by barrister Rajiv Menon.
I wanted to start by referencing this case because it's a particularly interesting recent example of the role of juries in our criminal justice system, and how essential they are to a fair trial. A jury of our peers, that cannot be instructed by a judge or the state to reach any particular verdict over another one, is the only defence we have against misuse of our criminal justice system by the state, whichever Government is in power at any particular point. Juries are composed of our peers, which gives them something more in common with the defendant than judges, lawyers or politicians typically do. When I was a student (both as an A-level law student and as a Creative Performance undergraduate at the University of Essex) I attended a number of court cases for research purposes, and I witnessed first-hand the crucial work that juries do. I have often wondered what it would be like to serve on a jury; I obviously have no control over whether I ever am, but if it were to happen I would consider it an incredibly important responsibility, and one I would take extremely seriously.
This is why I have been dismayed by Justice Secretary David Lammy's proposals to scrap juries for all but the most serious of criminal trials. The justification given for this is that there is too much of a backlog of court cases that we need greater efficiency in getting through. There are two major concerns I have with this. The first is that I am gravely concerned about people's essential human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, being tossed to one side purely for matters of efficiency (there are many important instances as to why jury trials are necessary, but as you were once the chair of Women's Equality Network Wales, I thought you may be particularly interested in this one from Independent Domestic Abuse Services (IDAS), a charity that specialises in domestic violence cases). The other concern I have with this idea is that I do not believe it will actually concretely address the backlog at all. The backlog is caused not by the existence of juries, but by successive Conservative Governments failing to properly address a number of issues with our criminal justice system. In fact, abolishing juries may potentially lead to even more of a backlog, because there may be more miscarriages of justice and therefore more retrials. You may like to read this article by The Secret Barrister, which suggests a number of more effective measures to deal with the problems Lammy raises.
Our justice system certainly isn't perfect, and nor are juries. Juries, as a randomly selected sample of the public, are fallible. Miscarriages of justice have happened in the past, and will happen again. However, they are a necessary cornerstone of our criminal justice system. They do offer an opportunity for the evidence on offer to be examined by a number of people, and a number of people who could not possibly have any ulterior motive. At the very least, they're likely to represent a higher proportion of women, working-class, LGBTQ+, ethnic minorities and disabilities than judges, magistrates or lawyers are, something I think is highly important in a world where we're becoming increasingly aware of privilege divides within our society.
Please will you reassure me as your constituent that you are with me on the importance of jury trials, and that you will use your voice in Parliament to protect them, including from your own Labour colleagues if necessary?
Best wishes,
George Harold Millman
P.S. Please be aware that as a political writer and blogger, I will be making this an open letter, publishing it on my blog, The Rebel Without A Clause. I will do the same with any reply I receive from you, along with my comments on any such reply.
--
I sent this letter on 8th February 2026. I will make public any reply, if any, I receive.
No comments:
Post a Comment