This post was contributed by Dr Laura Lammasniemi, Module Convenor for Criminal law.
Few legal reforms have caused as much controversy in recent years as the government’s plan to limit the use of juries in criminal trials.
Questions about the legal and symbolic role of the jury have always been central to studies of criminal law, but this debate has now moved sharply from academic discussion to the forefront of legal and political attention.
In December 2025, David Lammy, in his role as Justice Secretary, announced proposals to remove jury trials for most offences carrying a likely custodial sentence of less than three years. If implemented, this would mark the most significant reform to criminal trial procedures in England and Wales in decades. It has generated intense debate within the legal profession and nothing short of a furore in the press, even from within the government’s own MPs.
So, what exactly is being proposed, and why is it such a big deal?
Under the proposals, the government would establish new “Swift Courts”. In these courts, cases attracting a likely sentence of three years or less would be heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury. In addition, magistrates would be granted enhanced sentencing powers, increasing the maximum custodial sentence they can impose from six months to eighteen months.
The government estimates that around a quarter of cases that would otherwise be heard in the Crown Court before a jury would instead be fast-tracked through these new procedures. It has also expressed particular concern that seasoned offenders are opting for jury trials in the knowledge that delays may stretch for years or that cases may collapse entirely due to the system’s current structural and administrative problems.
The stated aim of the reforms is therefore to deliver quicker justice and reduce the growing backlog in the criminal courts. That backlog has become increasingly unmanageable: the outstanding Crown Court caseload is approaching 80,000 cases, meaning that both victims and defendants may face delays of several years before their cases are heard.
Crucially, the proposals do not extend to the most serious offences. Jury trials would remain guaranteed for offences including rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, human trafficking, grievous bodily harm, and the most serious drug offences.
Whatever one’s view of the proposals, few would dispute that the criminal justice system is under severe strain as discussed in this blog series before. Delays are extensive, and courtroom infrastructure is deteriorating after years of chronic underinvestment. As a recent report from the Law Society has shown, the system is struggling with unreliable technology, unsafe buildings, and courtrooms that are frequently unfit for purpose.
No one seriously objects to faster and more efficient justice. The more difficult question is whether this reform is the right way to achieve it.
Many within the legal profession argue that it is not. The Bars of England and Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland have issued a joint statement expressing serious concern and urging the government to reconsider. Central to their objection is the argument that trial by jury is a fundamental feature of the criminal justice system, and a concern that the reforms proposed would do little to alleviate the strain of that the criminal justice system is under.
The importance of being judged by one’s peers can be traced very far, back to the 1215 Magna Carta, which promised that no one would be deprived of liberty except by “the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land”.
Juries remain a powerful symbol of public participation in criminal justice, and for many people they are closely associated with the legitimacy of verdicts and sentences. This is not to suggest that judge-only trials are unfair or incapable of delivering justice. However, perceptions of fairness matter – arguably as much as fairness itself.
These proposals force us to confront a deeper tension between efficiency and symbolism in criminal justice. If juries are valued primarily because they produce better outcomes, reform should be driven by evidence about accuracy and fairness. If, instead, juries matter because they symbolise democratic participation in punishment and operate as a safeguard against state power, then efficiency alone may be an insufficient reason to remove them.
At the same time, criminal justice reform is not inherently problematic, and the role of the jury is not beyond legitimate scrutiny. In fact, juries can be marred with racial, socio-economic, and gendered biases.
There has been sustained academic and professional debate about the suitability of juries in certain contexts, particularly in sexual offence trials. Notably, under the current proposals, jury trials would remain for sexual offences – an area in which some of the most sustained critiques of jury decision-making have been made.
Rape Crisis has long called for a pilot of juryless sexual offence trials in order to build an ‘evidence base and understanding of what might work to address the current failings’. Juryless trials, using a panel of judges rather than a single judge, might well be a better solution to the current situation, which they call intolerable for victims. Yet, they have expressed concern about the current proposals, as sexual offences are excluded from the scope of the reform. Furthermore, Rape Crisis is critical of rolling out the current scheme without supporting evidence from a pilot and of the use of a single judge rather than a panel.
Backlogs and broken buildings demand action, but is an administrative crisis is good enough reason to redraw the foundations of criminal justice without further consultation?
Justice must be faster, yes, but it must also remain recognisably public and legitimate. It appears that the current proposals for reforms – as necessary as they may be – are driven primarily by crumbling buildings and administrative backlog, rather than a careful reflection on what these changes mean for justice, legitimacy, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Further reading
- Ministry of Justice, “’Swift and fair’ plan to get justice for victims” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swift-and-fair-plan-to-get-justice-for-victims
- Chalmers, James, Leverick, Fiona and Munro, Vanessa (2022) Handle with care : jury deliberation and demeanour-based assessments of witness credibility. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 26 (4). pp. 381-406. doi:10.1177/13657127221120955 ISSN 1365-7127.