By Gabriel Princewill-
Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy(pictured) has doubled down on plans to dramatically reduce the role of juries in criminal trials—a move he insists is essential to tackle a “crisis” of unprecedented case backlogs in the courts.
Lammy today announced a cap on court sitting days to be lifted in the government’s bid to reduce a backlog of cases. He also promised to fund every crown court in England and Wales to hear as many cases as possible next year.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Lammy added he is also going to push for reforms including ramping up the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a bid to tackle the court backlog which currently stands at 80,000 criminal cases.
The backlog in criminal courts in England and Wales will take a decade to fall to pre-Covid levels despite radical changes including curtailing jury trials, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice.
The justice secretary said the government was determined to press ahead with the jury trial changes despite a potential rebellion from Labour MPs, warning that no other measures would stop the backlog from rising exponentially.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Speaking at length in the House of Commons, and again this week in additional public and media engagements, Lammy doubled down on plans to curb juries.
Notwithstanding strong opposition to the controversial move, the justice secretary insisted the reforms are “bold but necessary” to save the system from collapse.
Lammy’s critics have painted his proposal as an assault on the right to trial by jury because or centuries, jury trials have been viewed not only as a defining feature of English justice but also as a democratic safeguard against state power.
Opponents, including leading voices in the legal profession and across Parliament, argue that removing juries from tens of thousands of cases undermines this heritage and could exacerbate systemic inequality.
Yet, Lammy and his allies say the backlog of criminal cases threatens justice for victims and defendants alike.
According to recent Ministry of Justice data, the criminal court backlog exceeds 80,000 cases, with some predictions estimating it could rise to 100,000 by 2028 without reform. Lammy has argued that unless radical changes are made, victims could wait years—sometimes nearly a decade—for their cases to reach trial, while defendants languish in pre-trial detention.
Under the proposed reforms, jury trials would be limited to the most serious crimes—such as murder, rape, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, and other high-impact indictable offences.
Lesser serious offences, even those that might previously have gone to a jury, would instead be tried by judges alone in newly created “swift courts.” Defendants would no longer be able to elect for a jury trial in cases where the likely custodial sentence would be three years or less.
Lammy’s blueprint, influenced by recommendations from Sir Brian Leveson’s review, also includes raising magistrates’ sentencing powers to handle more cases previously reserved for Crown Courts, and expanding the role of judges in deciding verdicts without juries in complex fraud and financial cases.
It also extends to increasing court efficiency through technology, including AI-assisted scheduling and remote hearings. The Justice Minister also plans to lift caps on Crown Court sitting days to allow courts to operate year-round.
These proposals are part of a broader suite of measures aimed at increasing capacity and reducing delays, but the focal point has been the decision to curtail jury trials.
Th proposed reforms mark a seismic shift in criminal justice policy, particularly for Lammy who once opposed the removal of juries.
At the heart of Lammy’s defence is a thoughtful, if contentious, argument that restricting jury trials in certain cases will protect rather than destroy the institution in the long term.
In a floor speech to the Commons earlier in December—published in full in the parliamentary record—Lammy outlined his rationale in stark terms, invoking both historical context and the current crisis:
“I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise… but without fundamental change, it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse.” Lammy emphasised that jury trials would remain the standard for the most serious crimes:
“These reforms are bold, but they are necessary… Jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of our system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences.”
He defended the process by which the reforms were developed, noting that magistrates already handle roughly 90 % of criminal cases and that judges sitting without a jury are tasked with delivering transparent reasoning for verdicts—something juries do not provide.
However, his critics point to a tweet he made in 2020 when he was still Shadow Justice Secretary, stating: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”
In a social media post that year, he said: “Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. The Government need to pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country to make sure these can happen in a way that is safe
Lammy also sought to pull the debate away from simplistic appeals to tradition, citing examples of past reforms and the necessity of adapting legal institutions to contemporary challenges. He noted the courts’ chronic underfunding and infrastructure issues and argued that streamlining trial formats is a pragmatic response.
Backlash from Legal Community and Political Opponents
Despite Lammy’s insistence that the reforms are aimed at saving the jury system, the legal profession’s response has been unequivocal in its opposition.
Late last week, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, and the Criminal Bar Association, all issued statements condemning the reforms as an attack on legal rights that would weaken defendants’ protections and erode public trust in the courts has made no difference to Lammy’s position.
Their position was reinforced by concerns voiced by the Law Society of England and Wales, which has expressed reservations about the use of technology like AI, warning that it should enhance rather than replace human judgment or weaken access to justice.
Opposition MPs, including some from Lammy’s own Labour Party, have warned that removing juries from so many cases could disproportionately affect minority communities and risk miscarriages of justice. Some have suggested internal rebellion could ensue if the reforms proceed without significant amendment.
Conservative critics have also seized on the controversy, with some arguing Lammy’s approach undermines centuries-old principles enshrined in the legal tradition and even the Magna Carta—a symbolic touchstone in debates about rights and fair trials.
Public and Academic Debate
Public reaction has been mixed. Some commentators, particularly those prioritising efficiency and victims’ rights, see Lammy’s reforms as a necessary evolution in an overburdened system. Supporters argue that justice delayed is justice denied, emphasising that trials dragging on for years harm both victims and defendants.
Others, however, view the proposals as dangerously blunt instruments that trade foundational rights for expediency, pointing out that the backlog is rooted as much in chronic underfunding and staffing shortages as in trial formats. Critics argue the real solution lies in resourcing and infrastructure, not in dismantling protections.
If the proposed reforms are enshrined in law, their impact will be felt across England and Wales’ criminal justice system. Hundreds of thousands of cases currently eligible for jury trials could instead be heard by single judges or magistrates’ benches. While Lammy insists this will speed up the process, some analysts predict it could shift pressure onto appellate courts and raise new questions about fairness and judicial independence.
The government’s plans also involve significant investment in digital and court infrastructure, with millions earmarked to modernise case management and expand court and tribunal budgets.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar