David Lammy, the UK government's justice secretary, has unveiled radical and highly controversial plans to significantly curtail jury trials across England and Wales. These proposals, described by some as a “massive mistake,” aim to address a record backlog in the courts but have ignited widespread opposition from Labour MPs, peers, human rights organizations, and legal professionals.

Under the new reforms, defendants will no longer automatically have the option to choose a jury trial for certain cases. Jury trials will be reserved for “indictable-only” offences, such as murder and rape, and “either-way” offences with a likely prison sentence exceeding three years. Crucially, defendants facing “either-way” offences with likely sentences of three years or less will lose their right to a jury trial. This means individuals accused of crimes like burglary, theft, fraud, sexual assault, stalking, sharing indecent images, drug dealing, and criminal damage up to £10,000 could be denied a jury hearing.

The plans also involve extending magistrates’ sentencing powers from the current 12 months to 18 months, with the potential to increase to 24 months if deemed necessary. Additionally, a new tier of judge-only “swift courts” or a “crown court bench division” will be established to hear cases without a jury, particularly for technical and lengthy fraud and financial charges. Civil servants estimate that these changes could divert approximately 7,500 cases annually, with 2,500 going to the new judge-led courts and 5,000 to magistrates' courts, out of about 15,000 cases typically handled by jury trial each year.

Lammy’s rationale for these reforms is primarily to tackle the severe backlog in the criminal justice system, which is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028. He argues that without fundamental change, justice will be denied to more victims, and trust in the system will collapse. The proposals are closely aligned with recommendations from a sentencing review by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson, who suggested diverting more offences to magistrates’ courts or a new intermediate court. The government claims that judge-only trials are estimated to take 20% less time than jury trials.

However, the announcement has been met with fierce criticism. Labour MPs, including Stella Creasy and Clive Efford, question the effectiveness of these measures in reducing the backlog, noting that jury trials only account for a small percentage of cases. Efford also raised concerns that the changes could penalize working-class defendants and create a two-tier justice system. Richard Burgon compared the policy to those enacted by Vladimir Putin, expressing deep alarm.

Prominent figures like independent MP Diane Abbott and Labour peer Helena Kennedy have warned of potential miscarriages of justice, particularly for minority groups and women, if the right to a jury trial is restricted. Kennedy criticized Lammy’s claim that jury trials cause delays for rape victims as “shameful,” emphasizing that such arguments often stem from a “snooty view of the general public’s ability to try a case.”

Critics strongly argue that juries are not the root cause of the backlog. Instead, years of underfunding, increasing complexity of law and digital evidence, delays in court transportation for prisoners, insufficient probation and social worker reports, crumbling infrastructure, and a lack of available barristers and judges due to cuts in legal aid are cited as the primary issues. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, stated that juries “work – they do their job superbly, and without bias. Juries have not caused the backlog.”

The controversy is further fueled by Lammy's own past statements. In his 2017 review, commissioned by David Cameron, Lammy concluded that juries remained “fit for purpose” and “act as a filter for prejudice.” Similarly, in 2020, he asserted that “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.” Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, highlighted these contradictions, as well as past comments by Prime Minister Keir Starmer who once advocated for “a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases,” asking, “Will the real David Lammy please stand up?”

The right to be tried by one’s peers is a cherished principle in England and Wales, dating back to Magna Carta. Concerns are also raised about the lack of diversity among magistrates and judges, who tend to be white and privately educated, suggesting that eroding jury trials could exacerbate existing prejudices. Juries have historically exercised the right to acquit based on conscience, which would be significantly reduced under these changes. Although the announced plans do not go as far as a more extreme leaked Ministry of Justice document, which suggested removing jury trials for all but the most serious crimes, the reforms still represent a fundamental shift in the UK’s justice system, facing robust opposition that questions their necessity and potential for adverse consequences.