Courts and Tribunals Bill — Further written evidence submitted by Tim Crosland, PlanB.Earth (CTB32)

Courts and Tribunals Bill Supplemental evidence further to submissions of 25 March 2026 (see ) Jury trial, Public Bill Committee Tim Crosland, PlanB.Earth Proposal: to introduce a clause to the Bill to safeguard the vital constitutional
principle

of

jury

equity
Suggested mode of implementation. Add the following the proposed new section
74A

of

the

Senior

Courts

Act

1981

(i.e.

within

section

3(1)

of

the

Bill)(3) The trial is to be conducted with a jury if— (a) the offence, or any of the offences, is triable only on indictment, or (b) the court considers that at least one of the conditions in
subsection

(5)
or subsection (6) is met in relation to the defendant, or
any

of

the

defendants

…
(6) The condition in this subsection is met in relation to a defendant if it is
clear

that

the

defendant’s

motivation

was

to

expose

government

or

corporate

wrong-doing

or

otherwise

to

advance

the

public

interest

…
Rationale for proposal My submission to the Committee of 25 March 2026 highlighted the democratic danger
of

removing

jury

trial

from

those

taking

principled

action

to

challenge

the

interests

of

the

powerful.
The practical effect would be to remove the centuries old principle of jury equity, a vital
constitutional

safeguard

against

executive

overreach.
A recent article in the Daily Telegraph made a similar point: “I’m a criminal barrister. This is the real reason jury trials must not be
scrapped”,

1

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/11/28/criminal-barrister-jury-trials-comment/ ‘I’m a criminal barrister, and it is a strange feature of this debate that of all
the

many

benefits

of

the

jury

system,

the

most

highly

prized

is

one

that

cannot

be

spoken

of

in

court:

the

common

law

power

to

acquit

in

spite

of

the

evidence

–

sometimes

called

“jury

equity”.’
Some recent examples of jury acquittals in cases concerning the boundary between the
democratic

right

to

protest

and

the

criminal

law:
In April 2021 a jury acquitted ‘the Shell 6’ of criminal damage, after they spray painted Shell HQ with “Shell Lies” and “Shell Kills”, in protest against the company’s climate
disinformation

campaigns.
In January 2022 a jury acquitted ‘the Colston 4’ of criminal damage after they toppled a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol Harbour. In November 2022 a jury acquitted members of Palestine Action for targeting the arms manufacturer, Elbit, which makes drones used to kill Palestinians. In January 2023 a jury acquitted Insulate Britain campaigners of public nuisance after an M4 roadblock, demanding government action on the climate crisis and fuel poverty. In June 23 a jury acquitted ‘the Brook House 3’ of public nuisance, for disrupting deportations to Jamaica. Such verdicts divide opinion. But to the extent that they appear ‘shocking’ to those in
power,

they

also

provide

a

unique

insight

into

informed

public

opinion

(i.e.

opinion

which

has

been

formed

on

the

basis

of

a

careful

consideration

of

the

evidence).
Juries are uniquely well placed to determine the proper boundary of democratic rights,
exercised

in

the

public

interest,

to

expose

alleged

abuses

of

power.

Democratic

participation

and

democracy

would

be

substantially

weakened

by

the

removal

of

jury

trials

in

such

cases.
The proposed additional sub-clause would preserve the principle of jury equity for the
class

of

cases

for

which

it

is

arguably

most

significant,

i.e.

for

those

who

are

prosecuted

for

taking

action

to

hold

power

to

account.

2