Justice Secretary David Lammy, also Deputy Prime Minister, has ignited a significant controversy with radical proposals to drastically limit jury trials in the UK. In a memo circulated among ministers and senior civil servants, Mr. Lammy suggested that only the most severe offenses—specifically rape, murder, manslaughter, and cases deemed of "public interest" with potential prison sentences exceeding five years—might continue to be heard by juries. He asserted that there is "no right" to jury trials in the UK and that such a move would not compromise a suspect's fundamental rights.

These "extreme" plans aim to overhaul the courts system and tackle the unprecedented backlogs in Crown Courts, which currently stand at over 78,000 cases. Under the proposed system, lone judges would preside over trials for other serious offenses meriting sentences of up to five years, effectively removing the long-standing right of thousands of defendants to be tried before a jury. The leaked Ministry of Justice (MoJ) document further disclosed Mr. Lammy’s ambition to "go further than Sir Brian’s to achieve maximum impact," recommending the introduction of trial by judge alone for cases involving fraud and financial offenses, particularly if a judge deems them technically complex or lengthy. A new intermediate tier of court, the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD), would be established within the Crown Court to hear cases likely to receive sentences of up to five years by a judge alone.

The proposals extend significantly beyond the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his July review of criminal courts. While Sir Brian suggested that reform of jury trials was "merited" to address issues with lengthy or complex trials and improve efficiency and financial savings, he recommended ending jury trials for many serious offenses that could be handled by a judge alone or with two magistrates. However, Mr. Lammy's plan for judges to hear almost all other serious offenses, excluding murder, manslaughter, and rape, represents a more profound shift.

The proposals have provoked a swift and vehement backlash from legal professionals across the UK. Lawyers widely consider trial by jury a cornerstone of English justice, and any attempt to curtail its use to only the most serious cases raises fears of its eventual abolition. Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, condemned the proposals as an "extreme measure" that "goes far beyond" Sir Brian's recommendations. He argued, "This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far," adding that there is no real evidence that expanding judge-alone trials will effectively reduce backlogs. Similarly, the Bar Council stated there was "no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury" from both a principled and practical standpoint. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, called the proposals a "magic pill" that "simply won’t work," warning they could "destroy justice as we know it" and attributing the backlogs to "systematic underfunding and neglect" rather than juries themselves.

Adding to the controversy, Mr. Lammy’s current stance appears to be a U-turn from his past views. Five years ago, he posted on social media that "Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea," highlighting the fundamental role of trials in a democratic settlement. The plans have also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch calling it a "short-term decision that risks fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system," and Liberal Democrats' justice spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller describing them as "completely disgraceful."

Despite the widespread opposition, the government maintains that no final decisions have been taken. The Prime Minister's official spokesman affirmed that "Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases," but acknowledged that it is "right that we ask whether there are cases that need not be heard by a jury." An MoJ spokesperson reiterated the "crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims," emphasizing that "bold action" is required to address the rising backlog.

This extensive overhaul represents a pivotal moment for the UK's criminal justice system, challenging traditional tenets of justice and sparking a crucial debate on the balance between efficiency, cost savings, and the fundamental rights of defendants.