Jury trials for offences in England and Wales that carry a likely sentence of less than three years are set to be abolished, the Justice Secretary has announced.
Under the proposed reforms, the government plans to introduce “swift courts” as part of a broader effort to address unprecedented delays in the justice system.
Serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, will continue to be heard by a jury, while volunteer community magistrates, who already handle the majority of criminal cases—will see their responsibilities expand further.
David Lammy described the reforms as “bold” but “necessary,” though Conservative critics have labelled them “the beginning of the end of jury trials.”
Earlier drafts of the plan, leaked to the BBC and the Times, suggested ending jury trials for most offences carrying sentences of up to five years.
However, speaking in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Lammy confirmed the government would retreat from the most extreme proposals.
According to Lammy, the new approach would process cases about a fifth faster than traditional jury trials.
He stressed the urgency, citing projections that Crown Court caseloads could reach 100,000 by 2028, up from nearly 78,000 in the current backlog.
“This means that currently a suspect being charged with an offence today may not reach trial until 2030,” he added.
The delays are having a direct impact on victims. Lammy noted that six out of ten rape victims reportedly withdraw from prosecutions due to these long waits.
The reforms will also restrict a defendant’s right to a jury trial to prevent what Lammy called “gaming the system.” me
Cases that can be handled by either magistrates or a new form of judge-only Crown Court will no longer allow defendants to request a jury. Fraud and complex financial crimes will also be removed from jury consideration, following recommendations earlier this year by a retired senior judge.
Currently, there are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales each year, with 10% progressing to the Crown Court. Of these, only three out of ten reach trial.
The new system is expected to maintain jury trials in just over two out of ten cases.
However, critics, including almost all barristers, argue that limiting jury trials will not solve the backlog, which they say stems from cuts to the Ministry of Justice rather than procedural inefficiencies.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick accused Lammy of “scrapping the institution he once lauded.”
Lammy, who had previously warned that cutting jury trials would be a mistake, told the BBC ahead of the announcement that “facts had changed” and that reforms were essential to clear the court backlog.
Responding in the Commons, Jenrick asked, “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?”
Lammy defended the changes, pointing out that the previous government reduced court sitting days and emphasizing that magistrates already handle the bulk of trials in the UK.
Abigail Ashford, a solicitor advocate with Stokoe Partnership who represents clients in the Crown Court, cautioned that the reforms could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
“Judge-only trials risk deepening existing inequalities and eroding confidence among communities who already feel marginalised,” she said. “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.”
