Recent developments in the UK, including the scaling back of jury trials, increasing restrictions on lawful speech, and the nationwide implementation of dubious facial recognition systems, reveal a growing trend towards authoritarianism.
Over a year ago, we pondered how dystopian a future under Starmer’s leadership might become. At that time, the government’s agenda was just beginning to unfold. Now, thirteen months later, it’s evident that the scope of government overreach is expanding daily.
Upon his election in July 2024, Starmer assured voters that his Labour government would handle their lives with care. However, just two months into his leadership, he reversed course, announcing at the Labour Party Conference that the government would assume greater control over people’s lives.
In the months that followed, several controversial initiatives emerged, including plans to launch a “non-mandatory” digital identity system, expand the use of live facial recognition technology, revive outdated policies allowing increased surveillance of benefit claimants’ bank accounts, and intensify efforts to stifle free speech.
However, the most concerning shift is the government’s current focus on undermining the jury trial system, a crucial legal safeguard that has protected individuals for nearly a millennium.
Redefining a Timeless Right
In an effort to alleviate court backlogs, Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor David Lammy has proposed limiting the right to trial by jury in England and Wales. If approved, this will create a new tier of “swift” courts intended to replace jury trials for most offenses that may carry a prison sentence of less than three years, as well as complex fraud and financial cases.
Speed and efficiency are being touted as goals. Under these recommendations, only the gravest offenses—such as murder, manslaughter, and rape—would continue to be adjudicated by juries. Despite the historical significance of jury trials, rooted in the Magna Carta, Lammy has proclaimed that we must not overlook the need for prompt justice.
Purportedly titled “Swift and Fair Plan to Get Justice for Victims,” Lammy’s proposal is fraught with controversy. As Daniel Alge, a senior criminology lecturer, notes, the principle of being tried by one’s peers is deeply rooted in the legal traditions of England and Wales:
Its origins trace back to Magna Carta in 1215, which promised that no one would lose their liberty or property without “the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”
The esteemed Lord Devlin described trial by jury as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives.” This principle is a fundamental element of justice in England and Wales. Lammy’s proposals appear more extreme than those suggested in Brian Leveson’s independent review, which recommended consideration of judge-only trials in specific circumstances.
The current plans go far beyond Leveson’s report, suggesting the potential elimination of juries in cases deemed as lacking “public interest” or those with sentences under five years.
In practical terms, jury trials already represent a small segment of the judicial process, accounting for about 2% of all criminal cases in England. Most cases are resolved through magistrates’ courts, where volunteer laypeople determine guilt and sentencing.
Thus, while these changes may seem significant, their actual impact on public trials and the court backlog could be minimal. Although there exists an unprecedented backlog in the criminal courts—over 78,000 cases—Alge points out that the underlying cause is multi-faceted, including years of budget cuts, court closures, and restrictions on court operation days.
One particularly concerning aspect of Lammy’s proposal is its political ramifications. For centuries, juries have acted as a democratic counterbalance to governmental authority. Historically, this principle motivated the barons to compel King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, establishing jury trials as a means to limit the king’s power.
The eminent English jurist William Blackstone even articulated, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, how trial by jury represents the pinnacle of English law:
“Trial by jury has always been, and I trust will always remain, regarded as the glory of the English law. The liberties of England can only prevail while this sacred right remains inviolable.”
This potential shift has drawn criticism, including reminders from Labour MP Diane Abbott, who pointed out Starmer’s previous affirmation of jury rights, demonstrating a significant ideological shift.
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the power of the individual” – Keir Starmer (1992)
What changed? pic.twitter.com/6nY3c593jH
— Diane Abbott (@HackneyAbbott) December 2, 2025
As Steve James articulates in a piece for the WSWS, one significant concern regarding this legislation is its attempt to undermine “jury equity” or “jury nullification,” a concept crucial in politically charged trials:
This principle allows a jury to determine whether a crime occurred, independent of the trial judge’s opinion, exemplified by the 1985 case involving civil servant Clive Ponting, who leaked government documents during a politically sensitive time.
Ponting was acquitted against the judge’s assertions of no legal defense, illustrating the potential for jurors to act on conscience for the public good.
New Legal Protections for Financial Crimes?
The exemption of complex financial and fraud cases from jury trials, characterized by “hidden dishonesty,” raises further concerns about potential bias in favor of the elite. Without jury trials, the legal system could skew more favorably towards Britain’s financial sector. It’s worth noting that influencing a single judge is generally simpler than swaying a jury.
Moreover, as pointed out by one observer, if intricate mathematical or financial models are employed to mislead, jurors may become confused and unable to reach informed verdicts. This suggests that in such cases, juries should consist of financial experts rather than average citizens.
The radical reduction of the jury system is especially alarming considering it is being introduced under a government generally seen as lacking in credibility. Starmer is currently one of the least popular leaders in recorded history, a position exacerbated by his government’s pattern of breaking promises made to voters. Veteran journalist Peter Oborne warned against taking Starmer’s words at face value.
“It would be very unwise to believe a word that Keir Starmer ever says.”
~ Peter Oborne.
Establishing an Authoritarian State
Starmer’s government shows alarming tendencies toward authoritarianism. As highlighted by The Guardian’s George Monbiot, the current administration is setting the stage for an oppressive regime that future, more extreme governments could exploit:
Three consistent traits of authoritarianism have emerged: the extreme repression of dissent, the utilization of extrajudicial methods to silence opposition, and a selective legal framework. These have all become pervasive in the UK, originally introduced by the Tories and now perpetuated by Starmer’s administration.
This indicates that should a far-right government come into power, capable of cracking down on dissenters and social services, existing mechanisms would allow for repressive actions without introducing new legislation.
The freedom of speech is under persistent threat. Reports indicate that police arrested over 12,000 individuals in 2023 due to “offensive” online communications, a trend likely to continue under Starmer. Notably, hundreds have been taken into custody for protesting the conflict in Gaza, demonstrating how legal parameters around free speech have narrowed significantly.
A recent high-profile case involved Natalie Strecker, who faced legal repercussions for her tweets advocating for resistance against systemic oppression. This incident emphasizes the government’s increasingly draconian approach to lawful speech.
Strecker was charged based on a mere handful of tweets pulled from a massive corpus of messages, illustrating how questioning state-sanctioned narratives could lead to severe consequences.
Emerging Surveillance State
Amid these changes, the Starmer administration intends to deploy facial recognition technology nationwide, building on work initiated by prior governments.
Police have been using facial recognition technology absent a democratic or legal basis for a decade.
Today, the Government has introduced a consultation which is long overdue.
Join our fight to #StopFacialRecognition – donate now⤵️https://t.co/7WxldldTMC
According to The Daily Telegraph, these systems could be deployed in “every city, town, and village,” with the police able to cross-reference suspects with a photo database of 45 million citizens. This shift risks turning the UK into an “open prison,” where citizens’ images become entries in a massive surveillance database.
Local opposition has emerged, with some councils advocating against these plans, citing concerns about privacy and the disproportionate impact on minority communities.
These developments complement the government’s digital identity initiatives, which aim to bolster overarching control mechanisms. Already, almost three million citizens have petitioned against the plans for a de facto mandatory digital identification system.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) emphasizes that such systems threaten to undermine foundational democratic principles:
The risk is that authorities could treat the entire population with suspicion, creating further inequalities based on data collection and usage.
The EFF, along with other rights groups, is advocating for parliamentary opposition to measures that could lead to a totalitarian state.
Overall, while these developments reflect a concerning trend initiated under previous governments, Starmer’s administration appears to be intensifying these troubling policies. As the global landscape evolves and economic conditions decline, governments, including Starmer’s, are increasingly tempted to deploy pervasive surveillance and control measures, thus edging society toward authoritarianism.
In conclusion, the parties in power appear increasingly willing to compromise democratic ideals in favor of control and efficiency. The collective pushback from civil society will be crucial in determining whether the UK can reclaim and uphold its democratic foundations in the face of rising authoritarian tendencies.
