The United Kingdom is moving toward one of the most dramatic changes to its justice system in centuries. An internal Ministry of Justice briefing shows that the government is preparing to sharply restrict the right to a jury trial for defendants in England and Wales. Supporters say this will ease a crushing backlog. Critics warn it is a direct attack on a basic pillar of freedom and a step onto a slippery slope that could permanently erode the right to be judged by a jury of one’s peers.
What the Government Is Proposing
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who also serves as justice secretary, is pushing a plan that would guarantee jury trials only for defendants charged with rape, murder, manslaughter, or cases that satisfy a special public interest test. Almost every other serious crime now handled by a jury in Crown Court would instead be tried by a judge alone.
The documents reveal that Lammy wants to create a new court tier called the Crown Court Bench Division. This would serve as an intermediate court where judges would single-handedly hear cases carrying sentences of up to five years. It dramatically expands earlier recommendations from retired Court of Appeal Judge Sir Brian Leveson, who advised limiting jury trials only for cases with sentences up to three years. Lammy wants to go even further to achieve what the document calls maximum impact.
The government claims this overhaul is needed to attack a record backlog of more than 78,000 pending Crown Court cases, a number officials say could reach 100,000 unless swift changes are made. The Ministry of Justice has said no final decision has been taken, but an announcement could come in December if Lammy wins approval from the rest of the government.
Which Crimes Would Still Have Jury Trials
Under the proposals, only the most severe crimes would continue to be decided by juries. These include:
- Rape
- Murder
- Manslaughter
- Other cases that meet a public interest standard
Everything else that currently goes before a jury would move to a judge-only system. The Ministry of Justice briefing even highlights special plans to introduce judge-only trials for fraud and financial crimes when the judge considers the case too technical or lengthy for a jury.
What Crimes Could Lose Jury Trials
If the plan moves forward, most serious crimes outside the big four would lose the right to be tried before members of the public. Examples include:
- Assault causing significant injury
- Burglary and home invasion crimes
- Serious dangerous driving
- Major drug offenses
- Fraud cases that do not hit the public interest threshold
- High value theft
- Many violent offenses with sentences under five years
Cases that today would automatically go to Crown Court for a jury could instead be decided entirely by a single judge.
Why the Change
The justification offered by officials is simple. The courts are in crisis. A massive backlog means some defendants being charged today might not see trial until 2029 or 2030. A recent independent review found the criminal justice system had been within days of collapse multiple times. The government argues that judge-only trials will speed up justice.
Lammy’s supporters point to years of cuts, overcrowded prisons, and insufficient staff as reasons the system cannot function without major reform. Some ministers say criminals have been choosing jury trials simply to delay proceedings and improve the chances of a collapsed case.
The Fierce Backlash From Legal Experts
The reaction from legal groups, judges, and political leaders has been immediate and intense.
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, head of the Criminal Bar Association, blasted the plan, saying it would destroy a justice system that has been the pride of Britain for centuries. She insisted that juries are not responsible for the backlog and blamed the government’s own underfunding for the crisis.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch warned that juries put ordinary people at the heart of justice. She called the proposal a short-term decision that risks fairness and erodes the foundation of the entire system.
Former judge Wendy Joseph KC said the change represents an absolutely fundamental shift in how justice is carried out. She warned that many judges will be uncomfortable being the sole decider of guilt in serious cases.
Baroness Helena Kennedy described juries as a vital valve in the system and pointed out that public trust is already fragile. Removing juries, she said, would make that crisis of trust worse, not better.
Even Labour peers like Lord Charles Falconer expressed deep concern, stressing that people must trust that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.
Reform groups warn that removing juries would be especially dangerous for people of color and others already facing bias in the system. England and Wales have a judicial bench where only 12 percent of judges come from minority backgrounds. Black judges have remained stuck at 1 percent for a decade.
Critics argue that juries, while imperfect, provide a powerful safeguard. With juries diminished, the likelihood of miscarriages of justice could rise, especially for vulnerable or marginalized defendants.
How Likely Is This to Pass
Although the government says no final decision has been made, the plans have already been circulated throughout Whitehall and Lammy has begun the formal process of securing departmental sign-off. Analysts say the government appears determined to push these reforms forward. Critics believe this is happening because officials see no other escape from the growing backlog.
Given the scale of political pressure and the severity of the crisis, there is a real possibility this proposal will advance into legislation early next year.
The right to a jury trial has existed in Britain for centuries and is rooted in the Magna Carta. It places ordinary citizens between the government and the accused. If that right is narrowed once, it can be narrowed again. Today the limit could be five years. Tomorrow it could be ten. Later, even serious crimes could be reclassified to avoid juries.
Legal experts warn that cost savings should never come at the price of freedom. Once the public is removed from the courtroom, justice becomes more opaque. A single judge deciding guilt or innocence behind closed doors concentrates enormous power in one individual and erodes a fundamental protection against government overreach.
The move may start as an administrative fix to a backlog, but it risks becoming a permanent shift that weakens one of the last defenses ordinary citizens have.
A Historic Mistake in the Making
The government says these changes will not compromise the right to a fair trial. Critics say otherwise, and history is on their side. Jury trials are not simply a tradition. They are a safeguard. They ensure that the state cannot easily take away liberty without the consent of ordinary citizens.
To scrap most jury trials in the name of efficiency is to trade away a core principle of freedom. And once that principle is weakened, it may never be fully restored.
NP Editor: When justice is curtailed because of “backlog” then the bureaucrats have become too powerful, and freedom and society are under threat. This is a stupid idea. But perhaps this was the plan.
Or… they could just fix and expand the court system.
