Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy stood before Parliament on December 2, 2025, poised to unveil what he described as the most radical overhaul of England and Wales’s criminal courts in a generation. With the courts drowning under a record-breaking backlog—78,000 cases and counting, some not scheduled for trial until 2030—Lammy insisted that bold, even uncomfortable, reforms were now necessary to avert what he called a “courts emergency.”
At the heart of Lammy’s proposals lies a contentious question: should the right to a jury trial be restricted to only the most serious crimes? According to BBC, leaked government documents suggested that the Ministry of Justice was considering ending jury trials for all but the gravest offences—murder, manslaughter, and rape—leaving theft, most drug offences, violent and sexual offences, and fraud to be decided by judges alone. Under the plan, only cases likely to result in sentences exceeding five years, or those involving the most serious charges, would automatically go before a jury.
Lammy, however, was careful to frame his intentions as a bid to "save the jury system," not destroy it. Speaking to The Times, he declared, “I will not be standing up in parliament tomorrow and announcing that we are scrapping jury trials, which remains a fundamental part of our system, and is one of the big contributions that flow out of Magna Carta – indeed, to much of the common law and the global community. This is about saving the jury system.” He echoed this sentiment on BBC Breakfast, stating, “I want to be absolutely clear, juries remain fundamental to our system.”
Still, Lammy’s reforms seem set to dramatically limit jury trials for so-called "either way" offences—crimes like theft, burglary, and certain drug offences where defendants can currently opt for a jury trial in Crown Court or have their case heard by magistrates. Lammy posed a pointed rhetorical question: “If you steal an iPhone this afternoon from Currys, should you be able to opt to have a jury? The trial may take two days, and inevitably, that will cause further delay for more serious and egregious crimes like rape or murder.”
Lammy’s announcement follows recommendations made in July by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson, who called for more cases to be diverted to magistrates’ courts or to a new intermediate court where a judge would sit with two lay magistrates. According to The Guardian, Sir Brian suggested that juries be reserved for “indictable-only” offences, such as murder, rape, and manslaughter, and that judge-only trials could be used for complex fraud or other intricate cases.
But Lammy’s proposals, as leaked, appear to go even further than Sir Brian’s recommendations. Volunteer magistrates—who already handle the vast majority of criminal cases—would see their sentencing powers doubled to two years. This, Lammy argued, would help clear the Crown Court backlog, which ministers warned could balloon to 100,000 by 2028 if left unchecked. Nearly half of the cases in the backlog are violent and sexual offences, and only about 3% of criminal cases currently involve a judge and jury.
Opposition from within the legal community was swift and fierce. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association both issued statements warning that curtailing the right to jury trial could undermine public trust in the justice system. Bar Council chairwoman Barbara Mills declared, “We have continuously opposed proposals to curtail jury trials because there is no evidence that their removal would reduce the backlog, nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced. Replacing juries with a judge alone is not the answer – according to the Institute for Government, few European countries allow lengthy sentences to be passed down by a single judge.”
The Law Society of England and Wales described the idea of scrapping jury trials for most cases as an “extreme measure,” arguing there was no “real evidence” it would work to reduce the backlog. They pointed out that Sir Brian’s recommendations were already “an uncomfortable compromise.” Abigail Ashford, a solicitor advocate, warned that “judge-only trials risk deepening existing inequalities and eroding confidence among communities who already feel marginalised. In complex or sensitive cases, removing the community from assessing credibility and fairness undermines trust in a way that cannot be compensated for by concentrating decisions in the hands of a single judge.”
Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, echoed these concerns, asserting, “It is not juries that cause delays. Rather, it is all the consequences of the years of underfunding that look set to continue: the artificial cap on sitting days, the crumbling courts, the inadequate technology, the failure to deliver prisoners to court on time, the lack of interpreters, and issues with funding of expert witnesses.”
Former resident judge Chris Kinch KC told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, “[Juries are a] right that has kept a link between the crown courts and the communities that they serve. You would need a very good reason to replace them.” He argued that the proposed reforms would do little to speed up trials, and that juries play an important role in ensuring the courts reflect the communities they serve.
Political opponents seized on the issue. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick accused Lammy of abandoning his principles, saying, “Labour have chosen to spend billions of extra pounds on benefits payments rather than funding the courts to get the backlog down. This year alone, 21,000 court sitting days have been missed and the court backlog is up 10 per cent on their watch. Instead of depriving British citizens of ancient liberties, David Lammy should get his own department in order.”
In response to mounting concerns about victims’ experiences, Lammy pledged £550 million over three years for specialist victim support services, and an additional £34 million to attract more barristers into criminal law. The late victims’ commissioner, Baroness Helen Newlove, had repeatedly highlighted the importance of such support, saying, “Support can be the difference between a victim staying engaged or walking away from the justice process.” An annual survey of victims found that less than half had confidence in the criminal justice system’s effectiveness or believed they could get justice by reporting a crime.
Lammy also committed to increasing the number of Crown Court sitting days and announced a match-fund scheme to help more young people start careers as criminal barristers. “We’ve got to invest more, we’ve got to modernise, we’ve got to reform. I’m determined to do that for victims right across our country,” he told the BBC.
As Parliament awaits the final details of Lammy’s plan, one thing is clear: the debate over the future of jury trials in England and Wales is far from settled. The tension between the need for swift justice and the preservation of ancient liberties will continue to shape the justice system for years to come.
