Up next in 10
WATCH: Scrapping jury trials is 'too much power' for one person to wield, barrister says
Nov 27, 2025
A top Barrister has hit out at Labour's "socialist regime" amid plans to scrap jury trials apart from in certain cases.Speaking to GB News, Steven Barrett told host Martin Daubney the Government "doesn't like freedom" and the decision hands "too much power" to the judge.FULL STORY HERE.
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
A massive row is brewing over the government's plans
0:03
to strip back jury trials in England and Wales. From now on, only murder, rape and manslaughter
0:09
would still go before a jury, with most serious cases instead heard by a judge alone
0:14
Now, critics say it echoes countries that have dismantled jury trials in the past
0:18
and call it the biggest assault on British liberty in centuries. Well, let's now speak with my learned friend, the barrister
0:24
the writer, Stephen Barrett. Stephen Barrett, can you believe that we'll be in the dubious company of world leaders
0:31
who've done the same, such as Lenin, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler
0:37
Add to that list now to Keir Starmer. Yes, well, I'm afraid that's because these are socialist regimes
0:43
and Keir Starmer is running a socialist regime and they don't like juries, they don't like freedom
0:49
they don't like independence from the state, they don't like small businesses, that's why they're crushing pubs
0:55
I saw your earlier story that man a hero but I wonder if he going to be able to pay his business rates because as far as I aware they quadrupling for pubs so they going to get crushed This is what socialism is
1:07
And they just... It's just... Really, it's a human addiction to control
1:12
So what they want to do is to have as many crimes as possible that a state employee will judge you on
1:17
And that state employee may well be called a judge, fine, but frankly, I'm not going to consider them a judge in my eyes
1:25
because a state employee who receives payment from the state, training by the state, by DEI
1:31
who is required to demonstrate commitment to DEI, that's diversity, equality and inclusion
1:36
before they're even appointed, who receives a pension from the state and who is effectively just an arm of the state
1:42
is not in any way an independent judicial figure. This is too much power for any one human being to wield
1:50
I can be called a hypocrite on this, Martin, because my division of the High Court got rid of juries
1:55
during the First World War when we had what I might call a genuine emergency This is a fake emergency a manufactured emergency that they have created in order to justify what they get But we tolerate that because my judges you know they don
2:10
really care. They're not going to care what the outcome of the case is. They're just dealing with
2:15
disputes between merchants and contracts. You know, they're dealing with disputes over land
2:20
It's technically a breach of Magna Carta, but we've tolerated it since the First World War
2:24
because, you know, the judges are not going to get corrupted by this power. The power to sentence people to prison
2:30
Now, that is a power that can corrupt a man, Martin. And if you're if you're put pressure, I mean, look at the riots
2:35
the alleged riots and the reactions that they had and how quickly the judiciary jumped when the government said so
2:42
And I simply and it's not I don't I'm not trying to insult our judges. I still adore them and hold them the highest respect
2:48
And I will respect them more if they refuse this power. If they simply say no, we should not, you know, no human being should have this power
2:55
In The Lord of the Rings, and I know I bang on about this a lot, Martin, but the two most respectable characters are Galadriel and Gandalf because when offered absolute power they turn it down That what you do You have to have some humility This is not something they can do
3:11
I need to interject for a slight touch of balance. And that is the government claims that the only
3:16
way of clearing the backlog of more than 78,000 cases is to speed things up by stripping a jury
3:23
out. Do you buy that? No, no, because why wouldn't a good and honest judge take it exactly as much
3:29
times a jury to deliberate. What they're saying is we'll speed up the system because the judge
3:33
will find everyone guilty. So they're admitting what they're going to do
3:37
They are showing us what they are before they do it. That's how these
3:41
petty little tyrants work. They will lie to you, they will give you some plausible
3:45
sounding reason, but they will show you who they are. And the only
3:49
reason to say it will speed things up is if the judge finds everyone guilty. It's like clearing the asylum backlog
3:55
Martin. The only way they've speeded it up is by giving everybody asylum. It's like
3:58
Shibana Mahmood planned to punish migrants. It's to reclass everyone as a citizen
4:04
It's simply a con
#Courts & Judiciary
#news
#Politics
#Legislative Branch