Justice Secretary David Lammy has put forward proposals that could dramatically reshape the criminal justice system in England and Wales, igniting fierce debate among politicians, legal professionals, and the public. According to documents obtained by BBC News and The Times, Lammy, who also serves as deputy prime minister, is seeking to limit the right to trial by jury to only the gravest offences—namely rape, murder, manslaughter, or cases deemed to meet a public interest threshold. The plan, if enacted, would see most other criminal cases currently heard in Crown Court by juries instead tried by judges alone, marking a seismic shift in centuries-old legal tradition.
This bold proposal comes at a time when the Crown Courts are buckling under a record backlog. Ministry of Justice briefings reveal that more than 78,000 cases are waiting to be completed, with some suspects facing the prospect of waiting until late 2029 or even 2030 for their day in court. Officials warn that, without decisive action, the backlog could swell to over 100,000 cases—a figure that has left many victims and defendants in limbo, eroding confidence in the justice system.
The government’s internal briefing, circulated to Whitehall departments in November 2025 and reported by both the BBC and The Independent, outlines the creation of a new tier of courts: the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD). This intermediate body would sit between magistrates’ courts and the traditional Crown Court, handling cases involving sentences of up to five years. In these instances, a judge would preside alone, without a jury. For fraud and financial offences, the proposal would allow judges to hear cases solo if deemed sufficiently technical or lengthy. However, the right to a jury would remain for the most severe crimes and cases passing a public interest test.
Lammy’s approach goes even further than recommendations made earlier in 2025 by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson. Sir Brian’s independent review, which is due to have its second part published soon, suggested that jury trials could end for many serious offences, with the new CCBD hearing cases involving sentences up to three years. Lammy’s plan would extend that threshold to five years, in an effort to maximize the impact on the backlog.
According to the leaked Ministry of Justice document, the reforms are designed to "improve timeliness in the Crown Court through extra hearing time" and claim that "not compromise the right to a fair trial – there is no right to a jury trial." Lammy has reportedly begun the "write round" process, gathering cross-Cabinet and departmental support before making the proposals public. Should he secure the necessary backing, an announcement could come as soon as December 2025, with legislation following in the new year.
Not everyone is convinced by the government’s rationale. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, warned that the proposals "simply won't work – it is not the magic pill that they promise." She argued, "The consequences of their actions will be to destroy a criminal justice system that has been the pride of this country for centuries, and to destroy justice as we know it. Juries are not the cause of the backlog. The cause is the systematic underfunding and neglect that has been perpetrated by this government and its predecessors for years."
The Bar Council echoed these concerns, stating there is "no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury – from both a principle and practical position." Many legal professionals see the proposed changes as an unnecessary erosion of defendants’ rights, with some warning that it risks undermining public trust in the justice system.
Political opposition has also been swift and sharp. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch took to X (formerly Twitter) to denounce Labour’s plans as "a short term decision that risks fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system." She added, "Conservatives believe in our traditions and we believe in trial by jury." Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller described the plans as "completely disgraceful" and called on the government to "reconsider as a matter of urgency." She accused ministers of "dismantling our justice system and failing victims in the process."
Yet, the government maintains that drastic measures are necessary to address the crisis in the courts. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson told the BBC and The Independent: "No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims – with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising – which will require bold action to put right." Courts minister Sarah Sackman KC reinforced this position, telling The Guardian, "For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard."
Sir Brian Leveson, whose earlier review forms the basis for much of the current debate, has argued that reform is "merited" to address the unique challenges posed by lengthy or complex trials. "Reform to address these concerns will be likely to have positive impacts in terms of efficiency, by reducing the open caseload, and, in addition, in terms of financial savings," he noted. However, speaking to BBC Radio 4, Sir Brian declined to comment on the government’s as-yet-unpublished plans, but underscored that "substantial, structural change is essential," adding, "Our criminal justice system is at crisis point."
The debate over the right to jury trial is not new, but its stakes have rarely been higher. England and Wales have long prided themselves on the principle of being judged by one’s peers—a tradition dating back to Magna Carta. While there is, in fact, no absolute legal right to a jury trial in the UK, it remains a deeply ingrained part of the nation’s legal culture and, for many, a symbol of fairness and public participation in justice.
Supporters of the reforms argue that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The backlog, they say, is not just a bureaucratic headache but a humanitarian crisis, with victims and accused alike waiting years for resolution. They point to the potential for greater efficiency, cost savings, and more specialized handling of complex cases as compelling reasons for change.
Critics, on the other hand, worry that removing juries from most criminal cases could centralize too much power in the hands of judges, reduce transparency, and erode public faith in the justice system. They warn that once such a fundamental right is restricted, it may never be fully restored.
As the government weighs its next steps, all eyes are on December, when a formal announcement is expected. The outcome will not only shape the immediate future of the courts but could redefine the meaning of justice in England and Wales for generations to come.
