On the Folly of Dispensing with One's Peers: The Jury

By Narita Bahra KC

---

I have been told, with the solemnity reserved for those who mistake gravity for wisdom, that the jury system is inefficient. The solution proposed? Remove juries from fraud trials. Let judges decide alone.

As the first woman of colour to be ranked as a Tier 1 Financial Crime Silk in the UK, I have spent my career in the very courtrooms where this experiment would unfold. I have defended clients in multi-million-pound fraud cases for almost 30 years. I have watched juries grapple with complex financial evidence. And I can tell you this: when institutions promise to make things more “efficient,” someone’s rights are usually about to disappear.

What is really at stake is one’s right to be judged by twelve ordinary citizens who reflect the full diversity of this country, not by a single wigged professional, however fair-minded they may be.

I grew up without connections to the legal world. State-educated. No family in the law. When I started at 18, inspired by watching Crown Court as a child, I noticed something stark: not a single person of colour appeared in those legal dramas. That void did not disappear when I entered the profession; it simply became more sophisticated in its manifestations.

Even now, I am frequently the only woman of colour in the courtroom. The legal profession, despite genuine progress, remains remarkably homogeneous in background and experience. And that’s precisely why the jury system matters so profoundly, especially for defendants from minority backgrounds, female and vulnerable defendants.

Removing juries from serious crime and fraud trials means replacing 12 randomly selected citizens drawn from the electoral roll, representing the community’s full diversity, with a single individual.

Whilst the UK’s judges are increasingly diverse, they remain drawn from a narrow professional class. Most attended similar universities. Many came through the same chambers. Identical professional cultures have shaped them.

A jury might include a shopkeeper who understands cash flow pressures, a single parent who understands financial desperation, and someone from the defendant’s own community who understands cultural context. A single judge, however brilliant, brings one perspective, one life experience, one understanding of the world.

For defendants from minority backgrounds, this matters enormously. Research consistently shows unconscious bias affects decision-making. Twelve perspectives, twelve different backgrounds, twelve checks against individual prejudice. Remove that, and you are left with one person’s judgment, one person’s biases, one person’s blind spots.

The notion that removing juries will speed up justice is spectacular fiction. In reality, it achieves precisely the opposite.

Currently, a judge sums up in a day or two, the jury deliberates and delivers a verdict. Done. Under the new system? That same judge must produce a detailed written judgment, which can take months, sometimes years. Every conclusion must be articulated, defended, and footnoted. And unlike a jury’s verdict, which is mercifully final, a judge’s written reasoning provides infinite grounds for appeal.

I have seen complex fraud trials conclude swiftly with jury verdicts. I have also watched cases drag on for years as judges labour over written judgments and lawyers pursue endless appeals. Scrapping the Jury system will create an industry of delay in the name of efficiency.

Now we come to the breathtaking condescension and nonsense: ordinary people cannot understand fraud. 

Having spent my career in financial crime cases from UK frauds to complex cross-border cases involving clients from the UAE, China, and India, I can assure you: fraud is not rocket science. At its heart, every fraud trial asks two simple questions: Did this person act dishonestly? Did they know what they were doing?

These are questions of human nature. Twelve people with mortgages and bank accounts who have navigated their own financial pressures and been lied to in the marketplace are magnificently equipped to spot and identify dishonesty.

We trust juries with murder cases, DNA evidence, and psychiatric testimony. We trust them with rape trials requiring the most difficult credibility assessments. But spreadsheets? Too complicated, apparently. The logic is absurd. 

This is what is really being said: you are not clever enough to judge them. The white-collar defendant, typically middle-class, professional, deserves a more “sophisticated” arbiter. Meanwhile, defendants in other specified crimes will be judged by their peers.

Thereby creating one justice system for some, another for others.

The jury is the one element of our justice system that cannot be gate-kept or professionally shaped. Those twelve random citizens represent something no judge can match: the full breadth of society. Your neighbours. Your community. People who live in the real world.

When you stand in the dock, and any of us could, through misfortune or misunderstanding, you have the right to see people who could be your colleagues, your friends, your family. People who understand what it’s like to be afraid, confused, and financially pressured. People who might share your background, your culture, your understanding of the world.

For vulnerable defendants and those from minority backgrounds, this matters profoundly. Twelve perspectives offer twelve different checks against individual prejudice. Remove that, and you are left with one person’s judgment, shaped by one person’s life experience.

Remove juries from serious crime and fraud trials, and you have removed your voice from an entire category of justice.

Trial by jury should not be viewed simply as a right for the defendant; it is a right for each of us. The right to participate in justice. To hold the system accountable. The power to say “no” to the full might of the prosecution, regardless of the defendant’s background or the crime alleged.

The proposal to scrap juries in serious crime and fraud trials will not save time; it will create cascading delays. It will not simplify justice; it will make it remote and incomprehensible. It will not improve fairness; it will concentrate power in the hands of those least representative of the communities most affected.

Twelve jurors bring twelve different perspectives, twelve life experiences, twelve ways of understanding human behaviour. A single judge, however brilliant, brings one.

As someone who has navigated a profession that did not always see people like me succeeding, I know how institutions perpetuate themselves when left unchecked. The jury is the one democratic safeguard that cannot be captured by professional culture or unconscious bias. It is utterly essential.

One’s right to a jury trial is one’s insurance policy against injustice. How can it be too expensive to keep, when the price of losing it will be paid by those with the least power to object?

The day may come when you need it. And on that day, you will want to look up and see not a solitary judge, however wise, but twelve of your fellow citizens. Twelve people who understand what it is like to be human, fallible, and afraid. Twelve people who reflect the diversity of this country, not the homogeneity of the legal profession.

That is not inefficiency. That is justice. And it is worth defending.

By Narita Bahra KC | Leading Financial, Serious Crime & Regulatory Defence Barrister

---

About Narita Bahra KC

"She is just a winner. Somehow she gets hold of a case that looks to be going nowhere and wins it through tenacity and strategic acumen." | Legal 500

Narita Bahra KC is described as one of the most sought after silks in the country and one of the finest silks at the modern criminal Bar. Renowned for her fearless, innovative approach and exceptional results. She is just a winner.

Somehow she gets hold of a case that looks to be going nowhere and wins it through tenacity and strategic acumen. 

Narita’s reputation is built upon tenacity, meticulous preparation and an ability to empathise and authentically connect with professional, lay clients and juries equally. Narita leaves no stone uncovered. She will dive into the unused material and seek disclosure till there is nothing else left to consider, meaning that our clients can be assured that every avenue that could be considered has been. Her closing speeches are phenomenal and she is able to relate to a jury no matter what their background or age. A barrister who gets results.

Narita’s journey is not just defined by her legal victories but also by her role as a trailblazer in the legal profession. She was the first King’s Counsel to commemorate the centenary of women in law, and her career continues to inspire others. Featured in the Financial Times, The Times and other international media, Narita is recognised for smashing stereotypes and redefining what success in the legal world.

At the helm of Garrick Law, a boutique law firm with a remarkable track record of wins for their clients, and as a King’s Counsel, at 33 Chancery Lane Chambers, she is revolutionising what it means to be a modern defence advocate, defying expectations and championing diversity along the way.