As the criminal justice system continues to crumble, the justice secretary David Lammy is reportedly proposing a major shake-up that would scrap some jury trials.
Currently, all criminal trials are heard in front of a jury that decides on the accused’s fate; however, Lammy’s proposal will see jury trials only for murder, rape or manslaughter cases.
For the majority of cases, and those not to be deemed serious or in the “public interest”, will be heard by a judge alone.
According to a memo seen by The Times, Lammy – who is also the deputy Prime Minister alongside running the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) – wrote to ministers and senior civil servants in November to say that there was “no right” to jury trials in the UK and that drastic action was needed to cut the backlog of cases in the crown courts in England and Wales.
As of June 2025, the criminal case backlog in the Crown Court for England and Wales reached a record high of almost 80,000 cases, while the backlog in the magistrates’ courts was 361,027 cases.
Controversial reforms
This proposed move by Lammy comes after Sir Brian Leveson’s first version of his ‘once in a generation‘ review of the criminal justice system, which included controversial changes, such as removing juries from serious and complex fraud cases.
The deputy PM’s proposal will require primary legislation, which is planned for early next year.
Lammy’s briefing note stated that only rape, murder, manslaughter and “public interest” cases would continue to be heard by juries, with all “lower tier” offences to be heard by a judge alone.
The Times calculated that the memo suggested an offence carrying sentences of up to five years would fall under this, which was anticipated to be as many as 75 per cent of trials.
However, given that the legal profession was overwhelmingly critical of Leveson’s proposals, especially regarding the abolition of juries, Lammy will face an uphill battle on this major change in the legal system.
Back in July, legal bodies at the time, including the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, and the Law Society, all argued that jury trials were a fundamental and historic right.
Even the Times pointed out that the move doesn’t align with Lammy’s past views, as a social media comment posted five years ago, had him saying, “Trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
When approached for a comment, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “No final decision has been taken by [the] government.”
But added, “We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims – with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising – which will require bold action to put right.”
Industry reactions
On the news, the Law Society of England and Wales president Mark Evans said: “This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates, and it goes too far.”
“Our society’s concept of justice rests heavily on lay participation in determining a person’s guilt or innocence. Allowing a single person to take away someone’s liberty for a lengthy period or decide a potentially life-changing complaint would be a dramatic departure from our shared values,” he added.
While Bar Council Chair Barbara Mills KC stated that, “the criminal justice system is not in this crisis because of jury trials.”
“The focus should be on fixing the swathe of inefficiencies plaguing the system, which could be resolved and make a real difference now. The government should first test whether efficiency reforms would make a difference before making any major constitutional change,” she added.