British Attorney General David Lammy said: England and Wales restrict the right of citizens to a trial by jury. Under the proposal he outlined in parliament on Tuesday, only defendants charged with rape, murder or manslaughter, or cases that meet a defined “public interest” requirement, would be tried by jury.
The judicial reforms include the creation of a new tier of “speedy courts” as part of a plan to tackle unprecedented delays in the court system. The new jury-less court will take on many of the cases normally tried by juries in the Royal Courts of Justice, which deals with serious crimes.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
As a result, jury trials will be abolished in England and Wales for defendants sentenced to relatively short prison sentences (up to three years). The reforms do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have their own legal systems.
Earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice reported that more than 78,000 Crown Court cases remained unresolved, a record number. The government claims that eliminating the jury element of trials would save trial time by about 20 percent.
What is the government proposing?
Under the reforms announced on Tuesday, criminal cases punishable by up to three years in prison, as well as complex fraud and financial cases, will be tried without juries. Serious crimes such as rape, murder, and manslaughter will continue to be subject to jury trials.
The reforms will also see the government set aside £550 million ($726 million) for victim support services over the next three years. This funds support for survivors and witnesses as they navigate the justice system, counseling and guidance.
A Ministry of Justice memo circulated in Whitehall last week appeared to suggest Mr Lammy intended to go further than previously announced by allowing jury trials only in “public interest” cases that carry a potential prison term of five years or more.
However, he is understood to have watered down his planned reforms after opposition from ministers and legal experts.
In any case, these represent a change from Lamy’s views in the past. In a social media post five years ago, he wrote: “Trials are a fundamental part of democratic settlements. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
Shadow Attorney General Robert Jenrick accused Lammy of “abolishing a system he once admired”.
Why is Lamy announcing these changes now?
The reforms follow a review of the criminal courts carried out by retired judge Sir Brian Leveson in July. The government requested an investigation into the large backlog of criminal cases.
According to Ministry of Justice statistics, there were 78,329 unresolved criminal cases as of the end of June, an increase of 10% from the previous year. The median duration of infection has also increased by 10% since 2024, from 153 days to 168 days.
There are two main reasons for this backlog. They are delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and years of underinvestment in courts.
Mr Leveson recommended that the government cancel jury trials for some serious crimes and move trials to one judge or two sitting judges without compromising the “right to a fair trial”.
Mr Lamy described the backlog as a “court emergency” and warned that if the backlog was not addressed, it could rise to 100,000 cases by 2028.
Announcing criminal court reform in the Commons, he said: “I will create a new fast-track tribunal within the Crown Court, where a single judge will decide a verdict in any case that is likely to result in a sentence of up to three years’ imprisonment, like Sir Brian’s.” [Leveson] Recommended. ”
What criticisms are there of these proposals?
The right of defendants to a trial by jury has long been central to the British justice system.
Ahead of Mr Lammy’s announcement, Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, which represents thousands of lawyers, told the Guardian that the proposals were an “extreme measure” that “went far beyond Mr Leveson’s recommendations”.
“This is a fundamental change to the way our nation’s criminal justice system operates, and it is an overreach. Our society’s concept of justice relies heavily on public participation in determining guilt and innocence,” he said. “Public participation” refers to people without legal training and pertains to the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.
Criminal lawyer Riel Carmy-Jones told the BBC that the new proposals would not solve outstanding problems, which she blamed on decades of underfunding in the UK legal system.
He added that introducing “a layer of untested complexity” by eliminating juries would weaken the justice system.
“A judge-only trial risks deepening existing inequalities and undermining the trust of communities that already feel excluded,” legal advocate Abigail Ashford told the BBC after the announcement in parliament.
“Excluding communities from assessing credibility and impartiality in complex or sensitive cases undermines trust, which cannot be compensated for by concentrating decisions in the hands of a single judge.”
A survey of members of the Criminal Lawyers Association found that 88.5% opposed the creation of new “speedy courts.”
What is the history of jury trials in England?
The concept behind jury trials can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which laid the foundations for parliamentary power. The law states that free men cannot be punished “except by the lawful judgment of their fellows or by the law of the land.”
Although this provision did not immediately lead to the establishment of today’s juries, it solidified the idea that state power should be limited and that local communities, not just people with judicial training, but ordinary people, should play a role in trials.
By the end of the English Civil War around 1660, the independence of juries had become an important safeguard against arbitrary control. The Bushell case of 1670 established the principle of jury autonomy by ruling that jurors were not punished for their verdicts.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 further strengthened the right of defendants to trial by jury, especially in criminal matters, as a safeguard against interference and abuse by the Crown. Jurors became a symbol of community participation and protection from state excesses.
As the British Empire expanded, the jury system also developed, influencing the judicial systems of the United States, Canada, Australia, India, and some parts of Africa and the Caribbean. As such, the British model remains one of the most influential templates for due process around the world.
Have any other countries abolished jury trials?
In 1941, the Vichy regime in Germany-occupied France during World War II replaced the traditional jury with the Cour d’Assy, a court composed primarily of judges. That system has largely remained in place ever since. Supporters say the system results in predictable verdicts, but critics say it weakens the public role in administering justice.
Some parts of the former British Empire have retreated from jury trials since Britain introduced traditional jury trials.
India abolished jury-led trials in virtually all criminal cases following the infamous 1959 murder trial in which intense media pressure and jury bias led to the controversial acquittal of Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati.
Singapore phased out its jury system in the 1960s and 1970s, arguing that its small population and lack of multilingual speakers made representative juries unreliable. Officials also argued that complex commercial cases are too much for untrained jurors to take on and that professional judges are needed.
Malaysia followed a similar path, abolishing jury trials in 1995. Officials noted that the process of “dispensing” truly impartial jurors – identifying, selecting and formally appointing members of the public to hear cases – remains difficult.
