Trial by jury: a democratic right we cannot afford to lose

The crisis in the criminal courts 

England and Wales’ criminal justice system is in crisis. The backlog of unresolved Crown Court cases has reached over 78,000, a record high. To put this in perspective, the Crown Court typically processes between 100,000 and 120,000 cases annually, of which around 30/40% proceed to full trial.  

In 2024, under 31,000 Crown Court trials were completed. In the period from April to June 2025, the average wait time from a defendant entering a guilty plea to case completion was 13 months. When factoring in the duration of investigations, it’s unsurprising that many cases take years to reach a conclusion. New cases continue to pile up. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. 

Proposed reforms to jury trials 

To address the backlog, Justice Secretary David Lammy has announced plans to limit the right to a trial by jury in England and Wales. Under these proposals, jury trials would be abolished for defendants facing custodial sentences of three years or less. Only those accused of serious offences such as rape, murder, or manslaughter, or cases that meet a specific “public-interest” test, would retain the right to a jury trial. 

These recommendations stem from a review of criminal courts conducted by former judge Sir Brian Leveson in July, commissioned due to the significant backlog. The government claims that removing the jury aspect from trials could cut trial times by around 20%. 

Historical and constitutional importance of jury trials 

The proposed change has sparked controversy owing to historical and constitutional significance. The principle of trial by jury dates back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which declared that no free man could be punished except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. At the Old Bailey, a marble plaque commemorates Bushel’s case of 1670, in which a jury refused to convict two Quakers of unlawful assembly, despite judicial pressure and being locked up without food or water. This case helped establish the right of juries to reach verdicts according to their convictions and confirmed that jurors could not be punished for their decisions. In short, juries safeguard against arbitrary rule, ensure community participation and provide a check on the state’s power. 

The risks of judge-only trials 

Eliminating jury trials removes a core safeguard from the criminal justice system, presenting several dangers: 

1. Loss of independent public judgment. Without a jury, all fact-finding is performed by a judge, increasing the risk of unchecked institutional bias and decisions that fail to reflect community standards. It is perhaps unsurprising that, historically, the abolition of jury trials has been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. 

2. Increased risk of wrongful conviction. Blackstone’s maxim, “better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent suffer,” underscores the importance of multiple perspectives and group deliberation in preventing individual mistakes. In judge-only trials, a single error or assumption could determine the outcome. 

3. Reduced public confidence. Jury trials visibly demonstrate that justice is delivered by the people. Juries bring everyday reasoning and common sense into the process. Judges, relying on evidential and legal interpretation, may miss the human context and social realities of a situation. 

4. Increased risk of discriminatory outcomes. Diverse juries help dilute individual bias. A single judge, whilst well-intentioned, may unconsciously reflect their own bias. Research suggests that limiting jury trials disproportionately impacts black, Asian, and minority ethnic people, both defendants and victims, where jury trials may be a glimmer of hope in a system where ethnic minorities are over-represented. Lammy’s own 2017 review of racial inequality in the justice system emphasised the importance of juries in making the system more legitimate particularly for minority groups: “Juries deliberate as a group through open discussion. This both deters and exposes prejudice or unintended bias: judgements must be justified to others”. The judiciary in England and Wales is neither sufficiently diverse nor representative. In 2025, while black, Asian, and minority ethnic people make up around 22% of the population, they make up only 11% of court judges.  

In short, the implementation of judge only trials remove a key democratic safeguard against error, abuse and unfairness.  

Underlying causes of the backlog 

There is also doubt about whether the proposed reforms will achieve their intended goal of reducing waiting times. The backlog is not simply due to the suspension of trials during the Covid-19 pandemic or reduced operations due to social distancing. Rather, it is the result of years of chronic underfunding. Since 2010, the criminal justice system has faced deep budget cuts which have resulted in fewer judges, court staff, and legal aid practitioners, the closure or sale of court buildings, reduced sitting days, and less investment in digital systems. Meanwhile, the number of cases has risen, and technological advancements have made cases more complex and resource-intensive, leading to longer trials.  

To put it simply, demand has gone up, capacity has gone down, and the system has no spare resilience.   

Potential impact of the proposed changes 

Because jury trials require more time, for selecting jurors, longer deliberations, and more procedural steps. Removing juries from certain cases may speed up proceedings. Theoretically, this could clear simpler or less resource-intensive cases more quickly. However, it is unlikely to be sufficient and may even prove counterproductive. The problems stretch far beyond the court system. Delays in pre-trial procedures, poor logistics (such as prisoner transport issues), the increased complexity of serious cases due to technological advances, and staff shortages across the entire system, police, prosecution, defence, and probation. Eliminating juries does not address these deeper structural problems. Transferring cases to judge-only trials could simply shift the bottleneck to lower and mid severity cases, rather than resolve it.  

Lammy’s plans include a major increase in court capacity, with an additional 1,250 sitting days. However, increasing the number of sitting days is not in and of itself a solution. There are already shortages of judges and lawyers to staff the Crown Court, with a shrinking pool of criminal justice practitioners. 

There is also a risk that increased conviction rates from judge-only trials could put further strain on the already overcrowded prison system, especially if the volume of convictions rises. Solutions must also address pressures on the prison system. 

Criticism and alternative solutions 

Legal bosies and politicians widely oppose the reforms. The Bar Council cautions that removing the right to a jury trial could exacerbate the crisis in the criminal justice system. According to Bar Council Chair Barbara Mills KC: “The current system is capable of working if sufficiently resourced. Funding for justice should be in line with the demands made of the system”. 

Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has described the proposals as an “extreme measure” that go “far beyond” Leveson’s recommendations, stating: “This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far”. 

A survey of Criminal Bar Association members found that 88.5% oppose the creation of new “swift courts.” Opposition extends beyond legal professionals; Labour MP Karl Turner labelled the proposals “undemocratic” and misleading, and six Labour MPs, including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, have signed a Commons motion against them. 

A 2024 survey of 1,000 members of the public found that 75% believe the UK should retain jury trials. The majority considered jury trials to be fair (51%) and trustworthy (60%), and felt that more diverse juries are fairer (61%), with half believing juries should reflect the communities they serve. 

Alternative solutions to ease the backlog have been suggested, such as diversion programmes for first-time, low-level offenders, who would, after admitting responsibility, avoid trial or prison and instead pay compensation, engage with victims, undergo rehabilitation, behaviour management, or training. Other recommendations include allowing judges to sit as many days as they are available, offering up to one third credit for early guilty pleas, extending District Judges’ sentencing powers to two years’ imprisonment, and greater use of cautions for low-level offences. 

Conclusion 

The right to a jury trial is not a luxury to be sacrificed for expediency. Dismantling it risks undermining the principles of justice, fairness and public confidence which are central to a democratic society. There is a crisis in our criminal courts that is real and that is urgent. The solution lies not in stripping away democracy, but in adequately funding a system that has been allowed to decay through years of neglect. The widespread opposition from those who work daily within the system should not be disregarded. While justice delayed is deeply troubling, it is far preferable to justice denied through a fundamentally weakened system. There are alternative measures available to address the backlog without sacrificing the constitutional safeguards that have protected British liberty for over eight hundred years.