The right to a jury trial is an essential protection against an authoritarian state. Juries may be flawed, but the ability of a jury to return even a perverse verdict is one of the guarantees of a free society. It should not be given up lightly.
So Andy Burnham’s decision to scrap Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to dramatically restrict the number of cases that could be heard by a jury is a welcome one. It is the second such change to criminal justice policy made by the new prime minister and Alex Norris, his new justice secretary.
The first adjustment to the policies inherited from Sir Keir and David Lammy was to limit the number of prisoners granted early release in order to ease overcrowding in jails. This had the effect of keeping two of the killers of PC Andrew Harper behind bars, which was the right decision – although it took Mr Burnham and Mr Norris more than one attempt to arrive at it. It is still not clear exactly how the solution, which Mr Burnham at one point described as impossible, was achieved.
Much the same applies to the U-turn on the right to jury trial. Mr Lammy insisted that the courts backlog had become so serious that there was no way to reduce it except by restricting the right to jury trial, because jury trials take so much longer than cases heard only by a judge.
Mr Norris has now decided that there is, after all, another way to tackle the backlog without taking away this essential component of the justice system. He says the change of policy allows the government to start work on “maximising efficiencies” earlier: “I remain committed to structural reform, which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog.”
We look forward to hearing the details, because The Independent always had its doubts that the restriction of jury trials proposed by Sir Brian Leveson, the former senior judge, was the only way to make the courts more efficient. Anyone who has had any contact with the criminal justice system knows that it is chronically dysfunctional.
We are aware that part of the problem has been the lack of funds over the years, which is why we are inclined to take the credit claimed by Nick Timothy, the shadow justice secretary, for Mr Norris’s U-turn with a pinch of salt. The Labour government has increased planned spending on the courts, but it has rightly insisted that the increase be accompanied by reform.
Equally, it is right that Mr Norris should not be applying to the taxpayer for further funding to pay for the preservation of the right to jury trial. There is plenty of scope elsewhere in the justice system for further savings.
If anyone deserves credit for the change of course, it is Karl Turner, the former Labour MP who was suspended by the party after his outspoken criticism of his own government on this issue. He should have the whip restored immediately.
But praise is also due to Mr Burnham and Mr Norris. Not because they are better at politics than Sir Keir and Mr Lammy, although they are, but because the plan to restrict the right to jury trial was wrong in principle.
The next stage, though, is the most difficult. Mr Norris implied that, because the bill to reform the courts will not now be held up in the House of Lords, he would be able to press ahead more quickly with making the courts more efficient.
Everyone repeats the phrase derived from Magna Carta that justice delayed is justice denied. The most important prize will go to the ministers, officials and lawyers who act on it and deliver the justice that the people deserve.
Read MoreI never thought I would say it, but Kemi Badenoch really could become prime minister
Burnham faces a stark choice: Call an election or be a lame duck
