Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is facing mounting dissent from within his own party over controversial plans to restrict the right to jury trials in England and Wales, as nearly 40 Labour MPs have formally challenged the government’s proposed reforms. The rebellion, led by Hull East MP and former shadow attorney general Karl Turner, signals a deepening rift within Labour ranks and casts uncertainty over the future of one of Britain’s most cherished legal traditions.
Justice Secretary David Lammy unveiled the contentious proposal on December 3, 2025, aiming to reserve jury trials only for the most serious offences—such as rape and murder—or those likely to result in sentences exceeding three years. The government argues that this drastic measure is necessary to address an unprecedented backlog in the Crown Court system, which, according to official figures published on December 12, 2025, now stands at a record 79,619 outstanding cases. Alarmingly, more than 20,000 of these cases have been open for over a year, and projections suggest that caseloads could reach 100,000 by 2028. As it stands, suspects charged with offences today may not see trial until 2030, with delays so severe that six out of ten rape victims reportedly withdraw from prosecutions, as reported by BBC.
The proposed reform would strip the right to a jury trial for crimes carrying likely sentences under three years, shifting these cases to magistrates and a newly established judge-only Crown Court. Volunteer community magistrates are expected to shoulder more of the caseload, and new “swift courts” would be set up to expedite proceedings. Lammy claims this system would process cases one-fifth faster than traditional jury trials, which he says is critical to preventing a “total system collapse.” The blueprint for these changes is rooted in a review by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, who in July 2025 argued that “fundamental” reforms were needed to keep the justice system afloat, even suggesting jury trials be ended for most crimes attracting sentences up to five years and that more cases be resolved through out-of-court settlements.
Despite the government’s insistence on the necessity of these reforms, a wave of opposition has swept through the Labour backbenches. On December 17, 2025, Karl Turner spearheaded an open letter to Prime Minister Starmer, co-signed by 38 other Labour MPs, including prominent figures such as Diane Abbott, the Mother of the House of Commons, Vicky Foxcroft, and Dan Carden. The letter, which Turner shared on social media, brands the government’s proposals as “an ineffective way of dealing with the crippling backlog in cases in our criminal justice system.” The MPs, largely from the party’s left wing, warned, “The drastic restriction of the right to trial by jury is not a silver bullet. To limit a fundamental right for what will make a marginal difference to the backlog, if any, is madness and will cause more problems than it solves.”
The MPs argue that the backlog was not caused by jurors, nor will it be fixed by their removal from public duty. They point to a series of alternative solutions, including increasing the number of court sitting days, hiring more part-time judges known as Recorders, and encouraging the Crown Prosecution Service to consider bringing some delayed cases on lesser charges. The letter highlights that, despite a capacity crisis, courts are restricted by 20,000 sitting days each year out of a possible 130,000, and the government’s plan to add just 5,000 more sitting days falls far short of what is needed.
“It is our belief that the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government can do to more effectively reduce the backlog,” the letter states. The MPs also invoked wartime precedent, noting, “Every day during the Second World War juries continued to sit reverting from 12 to 7 jurors, we are not at war!” They have called for the proposals to be paused until “proven evidence can be provided that this proposal will substantially reduce the backlog in the Crown Courts,” and some have suggested a “sunset clause” that would restore full jury trial rights once the backlog is cleared.
Turner, a former criminal barrister, has been especially vocal, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the changes are “unjust” and that the “right to be heard before a tribunal of their own people” has “existed for something like 800 years.” He added, “It won’t work and I’m afraid the government are going to have to realise that and change their tune.” Turner further criticized the government for blaming juries for the backlog, arguing that the real culprits are court closures and late prisoner deliveries. “Speak to the men and women at the criminal bar—they are there every single day of the week and they will identify the problem is not juries,” he said.
The letter’s signatories represent a cross-section of Labour’s internal factions, including senior figures like Diane Abbott, a leading member of the Tribune group, and Dan Carden, who leads the Blue Labour group of backbenchers. Turner’s efforts have galvanized support beyond the 39 MPs, with many more reportedly prepared to rebel if necessary. “Many more MPs, not on this letter, have said they will rebel if necessary,” Turner declared on social media, underscoring the scale of the challenge facing Starmer’s government.
Prime Minister Starmer has sought to reassure critics, maintaining that “juries will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases.” He has also pointed out that jury trials already constitute only a small proportion of criminal trials within the court system. However, this has done little to quell the unrest among Labour MPs, who remain unconvinced that the reforms will deliver the promised results without eroding fundamental legal rights.
The opposition is not confined to Labour’s left flank. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also weighed in on December 12, 2025, arguing that the government’s approach lacks imagination and that courts should instead sit for longer hours to clear the backlog. “Scrapping jury trials is just one extra step that takes away freedoms and liberties. Judges don’t always get it right,” Badenoch told broadcasters, echoing concerns about the potential loss of public trust in the justice system.
As the debate rages on, the government faces a delicate balancing act: addressing the urgent need to clear court backlogs while preserving the rights and traditions that underpin the British legal system. With parliamentary rebellion brewing and public scrutiny intensifying, the fate of jury trials in England and Wales hangs in the balance—an age-old institution now at the heart of a modern political storm.
