Pastor Penn's Plaque: A Warning from 1670 as Britain contemplates the end of Trial by Jury

“A trial that hath been used time out of mind in this nation.” Sir William Blackstone.

You heard that the UK[1] government intends to curtail the right to be tried by jury for many offences. They stated that they will introduce ‘swift’ courts with a judge and magistrates, but no jury, for all offences carrying up to 3 years (the jury-right in the UK attaches generally upon a 6-month and above-sentencing exposure, similar to here in the U.S.)

We should restrict the ancient protection of trial by jury…

So said the State through Justice Secretary David Lammy, MP, on December 2^nd. This follows the 388-page reform recommendations by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson.

The official reasoning goes: It takes a lot longer these days for trials to be listed to go before the jury, and that’s not good. And that’s true. It is also argued that some trials are listed for 2029, and there aren’t enough judges and advocates.

They did a great job at hiding their intentions in a criminal justice reform package contemplating benevolent measures such as sentencing reforms, drug-courts, etc. The sole intention, nonetheless, remains clear. Don’t let them get trial by jury for a large class of offenses, including under the Malicious Communications Act. All in all, it’s a 3.5/10, discount-vendor Trojan Horse. It’s obvious to most people what the plan is.

The BBC headline dated December 2nd read as follows: “Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years.” Are you cognizant of the semantics used to make you acquiesce? The BBC prefers the past tense - but the bill has not even been presented, let alone voted on. Your subconscious subverted, made to believe it is futile and too late to protest.

Just five years ago, when the Tory government made a like proposal, David Lammy, when he was in opposition, stated that “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.” Now, in 2025, he states that “a peculiar way to run a public service.”

Why this change of heart?

The reasons are spiritual and go to the very core of humanity.

He is now cloaked in the power of government. He never had a change of opinion, because the former David Lammy did not speak thus. David Lammy became the government. A part of it. And a government will by definition curtail individual rights in order to expand itself. Such is the way of the universe.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12)

It is this eternal contest in which we are enmeshed.

On December 2^nd, a Sky News reporter pressed Sir Brian on his proposal, asking him whether, as an innocent person wrongfully accused of, say, theft, he would prefer trial by jury or judge. He stated that he would be fine with the judge acquitting him.

But he misses the point. And so does the reporter. It is not theft offenses that we should be concerned about. It should be offenses such as those proscribed by the Malicious Communications Act 1998.

Under this law:

Any person who sends to another person—a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; or any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

Prosecutions under this Act have been greatly expanded recently, as you should have noted. What’s more, it is an either-way offence. Meaning that defendants can elect trial in the Magistrate’s Court, or in the Crown Court before a jury, with the maximum penalty capped at two years. Under the proposed reforms, the accused could not go before a jury if charged under the Malicious Communications Act.

The subjectivity of this law, and its potential for abuse, you all see for yourselves.

One other very ironic feature of this report I want to bring to you attention. The cover page contains several quotes by eminent historical characters. One of them, by William Penn, Quaker, Preacher, Founder of Pennsylvania, and overall Dissenter, reads as follows:

“To delay justice is injustice.”

Yet Penn himself was tried before a jury, and his case led to a revolution in the jury system. When he was indicted under the Conventicles Act for unlawful preaching, he was tried before an Old Bailey jury which acquitted him despite clear instructions by the trial judge to convict him. The judge tried to force the jurors to change their verdict to guilty, as indeed Penn was guilty under that law. The jury held firm, and they were sent, alongside Penn, to the Tower of London as guilty of contempt of court.

The foreman, Edward Bushel, filed a writ for habeus corpus, challenging his detention as unlawful. The higher court granted the petition, freed the jurors and ruled that the jury is independent and can deliver a verdict in accordance with its conscience. This landmark case is taught in law schools today and is known as Bushel’s case.

To this day, a plaque commemorates those proceedings. You can find the plaque in the entrance hall of no other place than the Old Bailey, Britain’s most important criminal court.

Is it not funny that this quote appears on the front page of Sir Brian’s report?

…

What are you, the reader (if British), doing about all this? Are you writing your local councillor, your elected MP? Are you speaking to your neighbours?

Did you get angry at these tidings of change? Did you even get annoyed? Or were you as bored as Justice Secretary David Lammy when he told the House of Commons of this proposal?

Are you even capable of anger? You cannot summon the energy to cling to our traditions, because you have no energy. You are enslaved to algorithms, to numbing substances that cheat you of your God-given lifeforce. How on earth would you be capable of resisting the bulldozer that is the government?

When did we switch our allegiance? It was once to the Sovereign. Now it is to the sovereign State. When did you begin to trust more into the latter, than in Him, who gives you strength for this ephemeral realm, and the eternal thereafter?

Do something.

PS: No point in calling it the ‘Labour” government, since Labour and Conservatives the one, i.e. a ‘uni-party.’ In fact, the ‘Tories made a like proposal to restrict trial by jury in 2020.

Yours, and a happy new year,

Tom Plan, Esq.