Who speaks for the Maltese people on trial by jury?

The campaign against Malta’s jury system should not be confused with a groundswell of public demand. Journalists, campaigners and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation are entitled to express their views. They are not entitled to assume that those views represent the Maltese people.

For years, sections of the media promoted a narrative about Yorgen Fenech’s responsibility. His acquittal did not deliver the outcome they expected. Following that verdict and the verdict in Lorin Scicluna’s case, demands to abolish the jury system have emerged. But where is the evidence that the public supports those demands?

A jury’s task is to assess the evidence presented in court. It has no obligation to validate a media narrative, no matter how persistently it has been repeated. Those who disagree with its decision must explain why changing the system would improve justice. Their disagreement cannot justify the change.

The debate in England and Wales is central to this discussion. In my view, the British push to restrict jury trials helped create a climate in which Maltese journalists could present their own campaign as part of a wider movement towards reform. It offered a convenient argument: if the country so closely associated with trial by jury was reducing its use, Malta could be encouraged to follow.

But that argument has now suffered a major setback. On 4 October, the British government announced that it would abandon plans to assign certain Crown Court cases carrying an anticipated prison sentence of less than three years to judges sitting without juries. Following sustained opposition, ministers changed course. Although other restrictions remained on the agenda, a central part of the proposed expansion of judge-alone trials was withdrawn. (gov.uk⁠, commonslibrary.parliament.uk⁠, news.sky.com⁠)

This reversal must not be treated as a footnote in Malta’s debate. The momentum towards restricting juries in England and Wales has encountered a substantial obstacle. Those who regard British developments as a justification for changing Malta’s system must also confront the significance of the British retreat.

My concern is that Malta could now become a guinea pig: encouraged to pursue a more radical removal of juries while England and Wales step back from a major restriction. The British proposals did not amount to abolishing jury trials altogether. Why should Malta go further, particularly when the demand is being driven by disagreement with particular verdicts?

Replacing jurors with judges would concentrate responsibility for deciding guilt in fewer hands. Why should the public assume that this would produce greater independence or better decisions? What safeguards would protect the alternative system from the same pressures and prejudices attributed to juries?

My concern is that the present campaign risks making confidence in justice conditional on whether courts deliver the outcomes its advocates favour. That is a dangerous basis for reform.

Those demanding change must demonstrate both that their proposals would improve justice and that their claimed public support actually exists. Speaking loudly in the name of the people does not mean that the people are behind you.