This motion puts one of Britain’s most culturally resonant institutions on trial: the idea that ordinary citizens should decide guilt or innocence. It asks whether juries—rooted in democratic participation and public legitimacy—can still deliver justice in a world of complex forensic science, digital evidence, long trials, and intense media coverage.

Proponents of the motion will argue that juries are vulnerable to misunderstanding technical evidence, unconscious bias, and emotional persuasion, and that they contribute to delays and expense.

Opponents will counter that removing juries risks concentrating power in the state, weakening transparency, and eroding public trust in verdicts. The debate turns on what “fit for purpose” means: accuracy, speed, fairness, legitimacy, or some combination—and what we are willing to trade to get it.