In a move that has sent shockwaves through the British political and legal landscape, Justice Secretary David Lammy’s proposal to drastically reduce the number of jury trials in England and Wales has ignited fierce debate, with opposition coming from both sides of the House as well as the legal profession. The plans, which were formally announced in early December 2025, aim to address a mounting backlog in the criminal courts by reserving jury trials for only the most serious offences, such as murder and rape, while shifting the majority of cases to magistrates or judge-only trials.
The scale of the proposed overhaul is historic. For centuries, the right to trial by jury has been a cornerstone of British justice—a principle enshrined since the Magna Carta. Yet, as Lammy stood before Parliament, he declared that tens of thousands of defendants would be deprived of this 800-year-old right in what he described as a “bold but necessary” effort to clear a record backlog, which currently stands at nearly 78,000 cases and is projected to reach 100,000 by 2028, according to figures cited by the BBC.
Under Lammy’s plan, jury trials would be reserved for “indictable-only” offences—those carrying the most severe sentences, such as murder, rape, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery, and arson with intent to kill. For “either-way” offences, which can be tried either in magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court, the right to a jury would be restricted to cases where the likely sentence exceeds three years. Lesser offences would be handled by panels of magistrates or, in the case of sentences up to three years, by a sole judge in a newly created Crown Court bench division. Complex fraud trials, which require specialist expertise, would also be heard by judges sitting alone.
Lammy defended the reforms in Parliament, stating, “I’m clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences, those likely to receive a sentence over three years, and all indictable-only offences.” He further argued that the changes were necessary to prevent defendants from “gaming the system” by delaying guilty pleas and to ensure that cases could be processed more efficiently—claiming the new system would handle cases 20% faster than current jury trials.
But the backlash was immediate and intense. Labour MP Karl Turner, a former shadow attorney general, issued a blunt plea on BBC Radio 5 Live: “It’s undemocratic. It is not about reducing the backlog. It is untruthful to say that it is. David Lammy, please God, stop what you’re doing.” Turner continued, “The announcement yesterday is fundamentally dishonest. The backlog in the system isn’t caused by the jury system—it’s caused by other factors.” He cited “not fit for purpose” courtrooms and outdated technology as the real culprits behind the delays and urged Lammy to “get a grip” and “put this right, put this stupid idea to bed.”
Turner’s condemnation was echoed by a chorus of Labour MPs, including Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who warned, “Scrapping jury trials would undermine a foundational principle of British justice: the right to have your case heard by fellow citizens.” Stella Creasy questioned the practical impact, noting that jury trials account for only 3% of cases. Clive Efford raised concerns that the changes could penalise working-class defendants, potentially creating a divide in the criminal justice system. Richard Burgon was even more forceful, stating the policy “sent a chill through my heart.” Six Labour MPs, including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, signed a Commons motion opposing the reforms.
The criticism was not confined to Labour’s left flank. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick accused Lammy of abandoning his own principles, recalling that Labour leader Keir Starmer previously argued for the universal right to jury trials. “Why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?” Jenrick asked in the Commons, adding, “In his twisted logic, he says he’s scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt, if the Justice Secretary gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials.”
Legal professionals have also lined up against the proposals. The Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council have both voiced strong opposition, warning that judge-only trials could expose judges to intimidation, especially in cases involving organised crime or significant financial interests. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, told the Financial Times, “It’s easier to intimidate one person than it is to intimidate 12. There could be risks in cases where there’s a lot at stake for defendants.” The Law Society of England and Wales described the reforms as “extreme” and argued there was “no real evidence” they would effectively reduce the backlog.
The reforms are built on recommendations made in a July 2025 report by former high-court judge Sir Brian Leveson, who suggested ending jury trial for most crimes with sentences up to five years and diverting them to a new intermediate court. Lammy has also asked Leveson to conduct a second review on how technology could improve court efficiency, stating, “We must future-proof our approach, technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception.”
Outside Parliament, the debate has spilled into the public sphere. Baroness Helena Kennedy, a prominent Labour peer, called Lammy’s claim that delays in jury trials disadvantage victims “shameful,” suggesting that curbing jury trials reflects a “snooty view” of the public’s ability to judge cases. She warned, “Once you start down this road of taking aside the right to jury trial, it’s going to be almost inevitable that it will end up being judge-alone trials that will be advocated by those who don’t like jury trial at all.”
To address concerns about victims, the government has promised a £550 million investment in victim support services over the next three years. Claire Waxman, the incoming victims’ commissioner, welcomed the funding but cautioned, “The sums pledged are not a silver bullet for the wider crisis facing the sector. Ultimately, these services are crucial to a victim’s recovery—and they will be just as essential to the recovery of the justice system as a whole.”
Despite the uproar, Lammy has stood firm, insisting that the changes will require legislation and time to implement, but expressing confidence that the backlog will begin to decrease by the end of the current Parliament. Yet, with opposition mounting from within his own party, from legal experts, and from the wider public, the fate of Britain’s jury system hangs in the balance—a debate that cuts to the heart of the nation’s understanding of justice and the rights of its citizens.
As the country waits to see whether these reforms will become law, one thing is clear: the controversy has reignited a passionate conversation about the future of British justice, the balance between efficiency and liberty, and the enduring power of a trial by one’s peers.
