Jury trials in UK to be scrapped in some cases in bid to tackle court backlog

Mr Lammy, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, told MPs reforms are “desperately needed” as victims face “agonising delays” in the system, with the crown court backlog projected to reach 100,000 by 2028.

“I’m clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences,” he said.

“We must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, it will take years to fix. The changes I’m proposing will require legislation, it will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect.”

The suggestion to scrap more jury trials has already faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals concerned over fairness, curtailing rights, and a lack of evidence the move will even help bring down the backlog.

Reacting to the announcement, the Law Society of England and Wales warned the proposals “go too far in eroding our fundamental right to be judged by a jury of our own peers”.

Vice-president of the society, Brett Dixon, said: “Allowing a single judge, operating in an under resourced system, to decide guilt in a serious and potentially life changing case is a dramatic departure from our shared values.”

The Criminal Bar Association said that “juries have not caused the backlog” and raised concerns over the “lack of detail” from the Justice Secretary.

Chairwoman Riel Karmy-Jones KC said: “The lack of clarity as to how the measures will ameliorate the backlog now is concerning.

“If agreed by Parliament, they will take a significant amount of investment and time before the fruits, if any, are seen.”

The crown court backlog is currently at a record level of more than 78,000 cases and some trials are being listed as far in the future as 2030.

Currently, defendants of either-way offences can have their cases heard in the magistrates’ court or crown court, where they can elect a jury trial.

But under plans announced on Tuesday, defendants will no longer be able to choose this option.

Mr Lammy said: “Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases and I agree that they and the magistrate should decide where a case is heard.

“This will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success, and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up.”

Defendants who could receive a likely sentence of three years or less, such as for offences of owning a dangerous dog, threats to kill and house burglary, will instead have their trials heard by a lone judge in a newly created Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD).

Magistrates’ powers will be increased to be able to hand down sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, up from 12 months currently, so they will be able to deal with more either-way cases.

The powers could also be extended to 24 months if necessary.

Modelling by the Ministry of Justice suggests that around 75% of cases that get sent to crown court for trial will still be heard by a jury following the reforms.

Of the 3% of cases that are currently jury trials, now 1% are expected to go to the magistrates’ court, 0.5% to the CCBD and 1.5% will remain as jury trials.

The reforms come as a response to recommendations made in July by Sir Brian Leveson to overhaul the courts system.

In his review, the former senior judge found there is “no constitutional or common law” right, or right within European human rights law, for a defendant to be tried by a jury, and so there was no need to limit reforms because of this.

In his review, Sir Brian said reform of jury trials was “merited” to address problems particularly with lengthy or complex trials.

“Reform to address these concerns will be likely to have positive impacts in terms of efficiency, by reducing the open caseload, and, in addition, in terms of financial savings,” he said.

The Government will also introduce judge-only trials for complex fraud cases.

Responding to the Government’s plans, Sir Brian said the evidence is clear more sitting days and greater efficiency will not rescue the system, adding there is “no silver bullet”.

“The recommendations I put forward represented a package of reforms designed to transform our courts into a system that can provide appropriate and fair decision-making in a timely fashion,” he said.

“How otherwise can we restore the position so that justice is not delayed for years?”

Sir Brian will publish a second report focusing on measures to improve court efficiency, but he insisted on Tuesday that “they would not, on their own, be sufficient to change the overall position.”

Reacting to the announcement, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said the proposals will be the “beginning of the end of jury trials”.

Meanwhile Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association, said the increased powers for magistrates was a “big vote of confidence” but more resources are needed for the courts including enough trained, well-paid legal advisers, and repairing crumbling court buildings.

The independent body also pressed the case for the new swift courts to include two magistrates passing sentences with a judge, as originally proposed by Sir Brian, so that “ordinary people” are involved in both verdict and sentencing.

It is understood ministers decided to divert from Sir Brian’s proposal for the CCBD to be made up of a judge and two magistrates because of practical reasons given the new rise in cases in magistrates courts from the reforms.

Mr Lammy is also expected to try to increase the number of sitting days, which are already at a record number, subject to talks with the judiciary.