Radical reforms to jury trials announced – here’s everything you need to know

Thousands of jury trials will be scrapped to give victims the ‘swift justice they deserve’, David Lammy said as he announced radical reforms to the criminal justice system.

Justice Secretary Mr Lammy confirmed juries will be replaced with single judges for ‘either-way’ offences likely to result in a jail sentence of three years or under, including burglary, theft, fraud, and some sexual crimes.

He told MPs today the government is ‘pulling every possible lever’ to tackle a record-high backlog of crown court cases nearing 80,000 – with some trials being listed as far away as 2030.

Ministers have warned the backlog could hit 100,000 within three years if nothing is done, with a growing number of victims giving up on seeking justice because of the lengthy delays.

Setting out the government’s reforms to overhaul the criminal justice system, Mr Lammy said: ‘We’re all proud of our justice system, rooted in the Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to deny or delay justice.

‘When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied, and this is a betrayal of our legal heritage, and it’s a betrayal of the victims themselves.’

Mr Lammy set out the Government’s response to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in July.

Those included diverting more offences to magistrates’ courts or to a new intermediate court where a judge would hear cases with two lay magistrates.

Announcing his criminal court reform in the Commons, Mr Lammy said victims face ‘agonising delays’ while defendants ‘bide their time’ and ‘game the system’.

He said: ‘I will create new swift courts within the crown court with a judge alone deciding verdicts in trial of either way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less as Sir Brian (Leveson) recommends.

‘Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials, and whilst jury deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open courts, so this will hardwire transparency in our new approach.’

He continued: ‘Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials, a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions. And, let’s be honest, it’s a peculiar way to run a public service.

‘Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases and I agree that they and the magistrate should decide where a case is heard. This will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success, and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up.

‘I will limit appeals from the magistrates’ court so that they are only allowed on points of law to prevent justice being delayed further.

‘Alongside these changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months, so they can take a greater proportion of lower level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court.

‘I would also take power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to leave further pressure. And when it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate.’

The Justice Secretary said: ‘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. Among others, this would include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.’

He added: ‘We must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, it will take years to fix. The changes I’m proposing will require legislation, it will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect.

‘But we are pulling every possible lever to move to in a positive direction and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains.’

How have people reacted to the jury trial reforms?

Mr Lammy reportedly watered down his plans to deny the right to trial by jury for defendants facing sentences of up to five years following backlash from MPs and legal professionals.

Cheryl Thomas KC, professor of judicial studies at University College London, has researched juries for more than 20 years and told Metro there is no evidence that removing a defendant’s right to a jury trial will reduce the backlog in cases.

‘Juries are not the cause of the backlog, and proposals to remove juries for most offences will not solve the backlog,’ she said.

‘Whether the government likes it or not, the cause of the backlog is a shocking lack of funding for over a decade.’

Prof Thomas said ‘there isn’t a solution without addressing three funding issues’ – getting the crown courts back to full operation by ending the limit on judges’ sitting days, repairing dilapidated court buildings and properly funding the Bar to ensure there are enough prosecution and defence barristers to try cases.

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: ‘The Government talks about its commitment to protect its citizens from harm, violence and sexual offences, but is eviscerating that protection by eroding the public’s right to trial by jury.

‘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.’

Which cases face the longest delays?

Sexual offences account for a growing proportion of cases with the longest delays in crown courts in England and Wales.

Incoming Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman OBE warned ahead of Mr Lammy’s announcement that the criminal justice system is failing victims on an ‘unsustainable and unacceptable’ scale

‘No amount of efficiencies, funding, or extra sitting days alone can fix a system this broken. We are past the point of sticking plaster solutions,’ Ms Waxman said.

‘This crisis demands bold decisions and radical reforms. Above all, we need action now. The longer we delay, the harder the road to recovery becomes. Every day the backlog grows, victims’ access to justice diminishes further.’

Ellie Butt, Head of Policy and Public Affairs at Refuge, welcomed the government’s plans to tackle court delays, which are ‘profoundly distressing for survivors of domestic abuse’.

But she said: ‘While we support the intention behind the proposed court reforms, the reality is that the justice system has repeatedly fallen short in treating domestic abuse with the seriousness it demands.

‘Many members of the judiciary still lack a thorough understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse, including coercive control. This can make the court process highly traumatic for survivors, while simultaneously allowing perpetrators to evade accountability.  

‘To ensure the government’s court reforms improve outcomes for survivors in the long term, investment in specialist support services must be accompanied by significant improvements in judicial training.

‘If more perpetrators are to be held accountable, judges must be equipped to understand the complexities of domestic abuse. Only then will survivors begin to regain confidence in a justice system that has too often failed them.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.