Proposed Changes to Jury Trial in England and Wales: An Erosion of Fundamental Rights

As a Managing Partner of a law firm that does not undertake criminal work, I observe these proposals from a position of professional interest only, and neither from a position as criminal practitioner nor current victim or defendant . However, as a lawyer and concerned citizen, I find I cannot ignore the constitutional significance of what is proposed. 

What the Government Is Proposing

The Government’s plans—advanced by the Lord Chancellor, David Lammy—would significantly restrict the right to a jury trial. Under the proposals:

- Defendants facing offences with a likely sentence of three years or less would no longer be tried by a jury, but instead in a new judge‑only “swift court” system. (Presumably there will have to be additional hearings to determine if the likely sentence will be for more than three years)

- Magistrates’ sentencing powers would increase from 12 to 18 months.

- Either‑way offences (those that could previously be tried by the magistrates, or by the Crown Courts with a jury) would lose the automatic right to elect jury trial.

- Complex fraud and financial cases may also proceed without juries.

Why These Reforms Have Been Proposed

The Government say, rightly, that the criminal justice system faces a profound crisis. By late 2024, over 73,000 Crown Court cases were unresolved, and this is now approaching 80,000. Delays of several years are now common, undermining public confidence. Some trials are being listed for as long as 2028 or 2029, which serves neither victims nor Defendants well. 

Why I am sceptical

I am sceptical for several reasons:

1. A shift away from the judgment of one’s peers leaves the potential for well-intentioned judges to make decisions not rooted in the facts of the particular case (Seen a hundred cases of assault, seen them all…)

2. The delays in the court system seem to stem from increased prosecutions, an underfunded system, empty court rooms, and inefficiencies in bringing defendants, interpreters, and witnesses to the right court at the right time and have nothing to do with juries.

3. Risk of gradual erosion of the right to a jury trial- could the right to jury trial be ultimately abolished altogether for even the most serious cases?

Conclusion

Governments have got away with defunding the criminal justice system because it doesn’t affect most people…until it does. 

When it’s you or your father or your daughter who is the accused, or a victim of crime, then suddenly it becomes very important for justice to be speedy, fair and efficient. Limiting jury trial is the wrong approach and will do nothing to speed up the process or clear the backlog of cases in the courts. This must be addressed, but not at the expense of fundamental constitutional protections. Jury trial is a cornerstone of liberty. Any reform that seeks to limit it should be approached with the utmost caution and hopefully opposed at every turn, even by lawyers like me who don’t appearin  the criminal courts.

In 2013 I was privileged to serve on a jury in several short cases. The vast majority of my co-jurors approached the task with the utmost wish to see justice done and weighed the evidence carefully in each case. We would lose this protection literally at our very own peril.