Dec 5, 2025
4

The Future of British “Justice” is HORRIFYING

Kit Knightly

The recent changes being made to British law are undermining the rights of citizens to a fair trial and presumption of innocence, and could turn our legal system into a truly dystopian nightmare.

Here’s how…

The reports

The calls for reforms, reviews and all the other R words come from three relatively recent reports.

First, there was the first report of Lord Leveson’s Crime and Justice Report, which was “leaked” in April:

Goodbye Jury Trials, Hello Digital ID: 10 “recommendations” from the Crime and Justice Commission

And which we covered in depth here when they were published in July (his second report is due to be released soon):

Explained: The UK’s Potentially Terrifying Criminal Justice “Reforms”

Second, there is the London Victim Attrition Review, authored by outgoing Victims Commissioner for London and incoming National Victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman OBE.

Third, and finally, there is the last report from the outgoing National Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove, the Annual Victim Survey 2024, which was published in October.

These reports lay the precedent and narrative groundwork for all the justice “reforms” moving forward. Notice two of them are victim-centric, that is clearly by design. Almost all the “reforms” are framed as “protecting victims”.

abolishing jury trials

This has been on the cards for a while, and should surprise no one. Just yesterday, Justice Minister David Lammy announced the plan to abolish all jury trials for crimes carrying (our emphasis) “likely sentences of three years or less”  (spot the weasel word).

The plan is to follow Lord Leveson’s recommendation from April and introduce a new judge-only division of the Crown Court to hear these cases and “clear the backlog”.

We’ve discussed this to death in the past, and I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I invite you to note the way MPs talk about accused criminals in articles like this one from the Guardian, and ask if it fills you with confidence for the future of justice.

Sarah Sackman MP describes choosing a trial by jury as a way for “career criminals” to “game the system”, with defendants “laughing in the dock”. The basic assumption is that all accused people are basically guilty.

Because eroding the presumption of innocence is a key theme here.

She goes on to suggest people accused of stealing minor items  don’t deserve the luxury of a fair trial,

Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?

And, while it’s hard to understand exactly what her broken English is intended to convey here, it’s probably (ironically) that juries are too dim to understand complicated fraud cases (that’s the view expressed in the Leveson report, page 306, para. 71) :

Do we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that (sic) we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?

The only rational answer to both those questions is, of course, “yes”, but I think she wants us to say “no”.

And note the already-tired call to “protect victims”:

“I’ve spoken to victims and survivors who tell me they’ve lost their jobs, they suffered mental breakdown all the while that they were waiting

These attitudes – alleged victims are always saintly, accused are always guilty, and a trial is a luxury afforded by a merciful state – are everywhere right now, and that should be worrying all of us.

While changes to the jury system are getting a lot of headlines — rightfully so — they are hardly the only frightening “reform” on the horizon.

Coaching witnesses

The state wants to “train” prosecution witnesses to deal with “tough” cross-examination. The recommendation, taken from the Waxman report, is covered in the Evening Standard, which headlines:

Witnesses in criminal trials should be trained to cope with tough questions

And that’s pretty much the gist. The incoming national victim’s commissioner wants state prosecutors to train witnesses to “deal with tough questions”:

Ms Waxman says the preparation should go further, delivering a “dedicated session focused on in-depth support for giving evidence” for witnesses who are vulnerable or could be intimidated by the trial process.

Which sounds rather like the state coaching their witness on how to handle cross-examination by the defence, doesn’t it?

It is, once again, couched in terms of protecting victims:

“For too many victims, the experience of attending court remains daunting, with limited support in preparing for trial which, coupled with the long waiting time due to the backlogs, is often an emotionally exhausting and traumatising experience”,

Incredibly manipulative. But at least witnesses will actually be present in the courtroom, instead of giving pre-recorded statements or testifying over video-link, both of which already happen.

incentivising allegations of abuse

The UK’s Bar Council is backing a move that will effectively incentivise allegations of domestic abuse in divorce courts.

In the UK roughly 15% of family court cases are eligible for legal aid, but the Bar Association is backing a change that would make any case involving allegations of domestic abuse automatically eligible.

To put two and two together, this move will undoubtedly — 100% absolutely certainly — increase the number of domestic abuse allegations.

The state will effectively be paying people to accuse each other of domestic violence.

cattle-tagging parolees

In late 2024, it was announced that London would be launching a pilot scheme to GPS tag those convicted of “stalking offenses”. This followed similar schemes tagging those convicted of knife crime and domestic abuse.

Under that scheme, over 230 parolees were returned to prison after breaching “exclusion zones”. This so-called “success” has now led to a national rollout.

The planned national scheme will see tens of thousands of people tagged with GPS ankle monitors, and introduce new “restriction zones” alongside “exclusion zones”. Breaching these zones will result in possible jail time.

It’s easy to see how a system of strict GPS restriction/exclusion zones sending people back to prison can be cynically used to extend a prison sentence.

Essentially, you could deny a defendant a jury trial because his crime carries a maximum sentence of less than three years, then use overly strict “restriction zones” to send him back to prison and informally extend his sentence.

Limiting Appeals

Following Leveson’s recommendations, Lammy has announced an end to the automatic right to appeal, limiting appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court to points of law, and making it so appeals must be approved by a judge before they can be heard.

To quote the Leveson report from July, those convicted will have to “apply for permission to appeal.”

This move has been widely criticised by legal experts.

Further, sentencing powers have increased for the lower courts, allowing them to impose fines of up to £10,000 or jail terms of 18 months.

So we have harsher sentences being handed out that, because they are given out by magistrates, will be almost impossible to appeal.

The psy-ops keep on coming

As always with propaganda drives, we are awash with cases and studies reinforcing the apparent need for reform just as the reports are published.

For example, this year has seen multiple stories of prisoners being “accidentally” released early – over 90 of them according to the BBC.

You know what a good solution to this “problem” would be?

Well, how about geo-tagging all prisoners or former prisoners?

It’s not hard to decode the messaging.

This is only a minor example, but yesterday, within hours of Lammy announcing the jury overhaul, “Simon” called into LBC Radio to tell us about a jury acquitting someone, even though he was guilty:

Only the willfully blind or unfortunately stupid could possibly fail to see this for what it is- crude and fraudulent propaganda. Unfortunately, our media landscape is populated almost entirely with this kind of low-level psy-op aimed at propping up the narrative of the moment.

Why is it always rape?

Natalie Fleet MP has written a long defence of “jury reform” for the New Statesman, published yesterday:

Why curtailing juries can help save British justice

…and literally the only crime it mentions is rape.

In 2023, France massively reduced its usage of jury trials – including in ALL rape cases.

Last year, Scotland tried (again) to get rid of jury trials for rape cases (they failed after resistance from the bar association). Again in Scotland, alleged victims are protected by the “rape shield” law during trials – meaning they are not subject to proper cross-examination.

This tramples the rights of the accused, but no one wants to talk about that. If you happen to be falsely accused – well, too bad because your accuser won’t have to prove their case.

One way the Scottish courts have always been superior to the rest of the UK (in my opinion), is the presence of the “not proven” verdict. An option for juries to say “the accused is probably guilty, but there isn’t enough evidence to convict”. It carries no penalty, works as an acquittal and renders protection under Double Jeopardy laws, but is distinct from being found “innocent”.

And now it’s scrapped. Why?

To try and increase convictions for rape.

Because demanding proof is just  (alleged) victim-blaming.

It’s just a fact that whenever tyrannical legal reforms are mooted, it’s usually in the name of either rape, or child abuse, school shootings or domestic violence.

The why of this is fairly simple.

These are all crimes heinous enough that no one will want to be associated with them, or be seen to be defending the (alleged) perpetrators. The government leverages our disgust at this kind of crime in order to legislate permission to commit disgusting crimes of their own.

Florida wants to make child rape punishable by death, and the UK is seriously considering mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders.

Instinctually, a lot of people will say this is acceptable. But, just as evolving definitions of “parental abuse” should cause us to question family court reforms, these criminal justice reforms should have us aware of the definition of “rape” or other highly emotive words.

After all, we were witness to the controlled evolution of “domestic terrorism” to mean whatever they want it to mean. We’d be naive to assume the same could not happen in other cases.

“protecting victims”

We have noted already that the rallying cry for all of these changes is “protecting” or “safeguarding” victims, usually women and/or children:

Essentially, the totality of the proposed changes can be summed up in simple terms: The state is placing the concept of victimhood on a pedestal of unassailability and leveraging that to undermine the presumption of innocence.

There is no more clear example of this than law changes regarding “bad character” evidence. Moving forward, it will be much harder for defense attorneys to introduce evidence of “bad character” for alleged victims – even to the point of limiting cross-examination on the stand. While, at the same time, making it much easier to for the prosecution to introduce “bad character” evidence for the accused.

Even the use of the word “victim” is prejudicial in and of itself, as it presupposes a crime has taken place. “Alleged victim” would be more proper, or the legal term “complainant”.

going global

It can be no coincidence that these reforms — all so heavily couched in the language of “protecting victims” and preventing “violence against women and girls” — are rolling out in the UK just as the UN is launching their own “16 Days” campaign to raise awareness of violence against women.

More concerning is propaganda messaging that “digital violence is real violence”:

The idea that digital or virtual behaviours should be bracketed alongside actual violent crime is incredibly worrying.

The UK already has frankly insane laws regarding speech on social media, with thousands and thousands of arrests for “digital communication offenses” every year. The framework already exists for these legal reforms concerning “protecting victims” to redefine terms such as “sexual assault” and “domestic violence” so they can be applied to online behaviour.

Conclusion

British law is rapidly becoming tyrannical. People are now routinely arrested for social media posts, and with the looming changes none of those people would be granted a jury trial and many of them would be subject to GPS surveillance after serving their sentence.

Let’s take everything together and mentally picture the inevitable future of criminal justice in this country:

  • You are accused of stalking or “digital violence” based on a social media post.
  • Your trial takes place in front of a single judge, not a jury
  • Prosecution witnesses are coached/testify via video call/submit pre-recorded statements/are not subject to cross examination.
  • You’re convicted but can longer  be granted an automatic right to appeal.
  • After three years in prison you are tagged with an ankle monitor on release.
  • Going out of your  “restriction zone”  – ie accidentally driving or walking a little further than your monitor allows  – sends you back to prison.
  • And your “crime” that got you into this place? It could be as little as sending an email someone found “abusive”.  Or indeed it could be nothing, because the system will almost guarantee that increasing numbers of falsely accused people will end up going to prison.

This is a dystopian hellscape, crafted in the name of “protecting victims”.

In late October I wrote a piece on the looming “reforms” to British family law, concluding:

In the end, is this all really about domestic abuse, protecting children or feminism?

No, I don’t think so. I think this is about inflating the role of the state in children’s lives, camouflaged in gender politics designed to turn mothers and fathers against each other.

I think it’s about perpetuating the war on the cohesive family unit and increasing single-parent families, in the knowledge that single parents will be more likely to rely on state assistance and less able to resist over-reaching rules and regulations.

In a similar vein I would ask, are these reforms really about “protecting victims”?

I don’t think so. I think the state is using victims – real and imagined –  as stalking horses for their anti-human agenda. I think they are invoking the idea of “speedy justice” to undermine centuries-old and hard-won human rights.

The future of British “justice” is currently terrifying.

…and we still have the second part of the Leveson report, and its focus on “utilizing technology”, to look forward to.

SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Categories: latest