By Gabriel Princewill-
A veteran UK solicitor has expressed mounting concerns in relation to The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts proposed by Sir Brian Leveson last month relating to several measures to reduce the Crown Court backlog by restricting the right to a jury trial, stating that it makes the British Justice System look a sham of its former self. The recommendations came weeks after Minister of Justice, David Lammy’s announced plans for Crown Court judges could, in limited circumstances, determine guilt in place of juries.
The rebuke comes after representatives for the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, Criminal Law Solicitors’, Association and Criminal Bar Association confirmed their opposition to Lammy’s controversial plan at a Law Society meeting a fortnight ago. The controversy has continued to gather pace about the controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill as it moves through Parliament. The bill aims to tackle a backlog of 80,000 cases by restricting jury trials for offences likely to receive sentences of three years or less.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Critics including The Liberal Democrats and The Law Society have criticised the bill as an insult to victims and an “attack on democracy,” arguing it erodes the 800-year-old right to be judged by one’s peers. Lammy first unveiled the proposals to scrap jury trials for crimes carrying sentences under three years to address “unprecedented delays”.
January 2026: Reports from the Institute for Government suggested these reforms would only marginally reduce court time (estimated at 2%), despite the high level of political controversy.
Last month, Lammy introduced a broader reform package including the use of AI in courts and “Blitz courts” to fast-track specific case types, while reinforcing his commitment to curbing jury trials.
Joseph Kotrie- Monson from Mary Monson Solicitors has today heavily criticised the recommendations which he insists arises from grosse under-investment, and wrongly denies defendants the right to fair hearing by their peers.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The outspoken and insightful criminal lawyer told The Eye Of Media.Com: ” In the face of legal expertise from legal practitioners, David Lammy still manages to maintain the deluded idea that removing the right to jury will remedy the court’s crisis. The impact on the reputation and fairness of the criminal justice system will be devastating. The vast majority of legal experts are disgusted by Lammy’s plans. We are all lawyers for the most part getting on with our jobs, and are witnessing the social importance of the criminal justice system degenerate year after year. David Lammy and the Labour government have managed achieve the feat of uniting the legal profession against
”Crown Court judges, however skilled and experienced, should not be handed the power to replace ordinary citizens in deciding whether someone is guilty of a crime.
‘The right to be judged by peers is one of the longest-standing protections in the UK’s legal architecture. For centuries, trial by jury has ensured that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.
‘It injects public participation, community standards and democratic oversight into a system that might otherwise be vulnerable to elite insularity or institutional bias.
‘Successive governments have created the problem of court delays due to underfunding with a deliberate program of court closures and cuts to the police, the CPS and criminal legal aid. The idea that this scandal can be remedied by removing a constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers in cases which carry sentences of several years should be offensive to society and rejected.
‘Undermining a core democratic safeguard caused by policy mismanagement will not fix a logistical failure
‘Justice works because there is a process that ensures fairness, with the assistance of the community, jurors with common sense and life experience who bring that to the table in criminal trials.
‘The right to a jury trial is a right that has existed for a thousand years. Career politicians have managed to bring the court system to its knees in a single generation, and are now trying to solve their mess by removing one of its most important safeguards. The British Justice System has always been the envy of the world; the standard other countries look to emulate.
‘The once revered British justice system now increasingly looks like a sham representation of its former self, and the worst lie we are being sold is that it’s necessary and was unavoidable.
While the proposals stem from an understandable desire to address backlogs, delays, and inefficiencies in the justice system, Mr. Manson argues that replacing trial by jury—even partially—would strike at the heart of British Criminal Justice System.
“Judges are not robots,” they are human beings shaped by their backgrounds, their experiences and the institutional structures in which they work.”
Although Mr. Leveson’s recommendations do not focus on “removing” individual jurors from active cases, they propose the removal of the right to a jury for specific types of trials or allowing judges to direct trial by judge alone.
The key proposals regarding juryless trials include Structural Restrictions on Jury Trials, the removal of Right to Elect in which Leveson recommended removing a defendant’s right to choose a Crown Court (jury) trial for “either-way” offences carrying a maximum sentence of two years or less. He proposed a new division where a judge sits with two magistrates (instead of a jury) to hear either-way cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.
The recommendations came following David Lammy’s initial suggestion that Crown Court judges could, in limited circumstances, determine guilt in place of juries has prompted intense debate across the legal profession. While the proposals stem from an understandable desire to address backlogs, delays, and inefficiencies in the justice system, many argue that replacing trial by jury—even partially—would strike at the heart of British criminal justice.
Supporters of Lammy’s proposal now officially recommended by Mr. Leveson, claim that the change is necessary to deal with the unprecedented backlog in the Crown Courts. Delays—exacerbated by pandemic closures, funding shortages and a shrinking pool of criminal barristers—have left thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for cases to conclude.
‘The independence of judges is often cited as a reason to trust them with more responsibility. Judges undergo extensive training, understand the complexities of the law and can weigh evidence with a high degree of precision. But critics emphasise that these virtues do not make them immune to the limitations of professional culture and unconscious bias.
The concern is not that judges would deliberately act unfairly, but that removing the jury introduces a risk of justice becoming too insular. In many cases, criminal trials hinge on nuances of character, credibility and lived experience—areas where ordinary citizens bring diverse perspectives that the judiciary alone cannot replicate. The absence of this diversity, critics argue, fundamentally changes the nature of justice.
Judges alone cannot fairly decide guilt in cases involving marginalised groups
One of the strongest arguments against replacing juries is the issue of systemic bias. Numerous studies have shown that individuals from minority ethnic backgrounds, working-class communities and socially marginalised groups often experience unequal treatment within the criminal justice system.
While judges strive for impartiality, they are not immune to implicit bias. Juries, by contrast, dilute the risk of any one person’s unconscious assumptions shaping the outcome.
Manson continued: “it is naive to assume judges are free from bias; they are simply trained not to show it.” This candid admission reflects a well-known but seldom discussed reality: the judiciary is drawn predominantly from a narrow demographic.
”Senior judges are disproportionately from elite educational backgrounds, and many have spent most of their careers within the same legal and social circles. Manson says giving this group exclusive power to determine guilt risks embedding systemic blind spots.
‘Juries, provide cross-sectional representation. They bring a range of life experiences that shape how evidence is interpreted. In cases involving police credibility, mental health, sexual offences or cultural misunderstandings, jurors often bring perspectives that a single judge simply may not have.
“Twelve people from different walks of life are far better placed to identify what a ‘reasonable person’ would think than a judge whose life is nothing like most people’s.”
‘There is also a constitutional dimension. Trial by jury acts as a public safeguard against the concentration of state power. It ensures that the government cannot prosecute and convict individuals without the involvement of ordinary citizens. In a time of growing mistrust in institutions, handing more power to the judiciary could deepen public scepticism.
”Transparency is another issue. Jury deliberations are private but their presence in court ensures public oversight. Evidence is presented openly, and the jury’s participation is visible. Judge-only trials risk creating a more opaque system in which decisions rest on written judgments shaped behind closed doors.
”Although judges must give reasons for their decisions, the absence of a jury weakens the perception that justice is a collective and democratic process.
”Importantly, removing juries could disproportionately harm defendants who lack social or economic power. Juries have historically acquitted individuals in politically charged cases where the law appeared to diverge from public morality
”From conscientious objectors to environmental activists and whistle-blowers, juries have exercised what is sometimes called “jury equity”—the ability to deliver a verdict that reflects community conscience. Judges, bound strictly by legal reasoning, cannot play this role.
Opponents of Lammy’s plan are also concerned about mission creep. If judge-only trials are introduced for certain categories of cases—even temporarily—they may become normalised. “Once you open the door to restricting jury trials, governments tend to widen the gap,” one legal historian warned. “It starts with efficiency and ends with erosion.”
Los Of Trust And Accountability
Britain’s justice system has already seen reductions in legal aid, court closures and repeated attempts to streamline procedures. The fear is that jury trials may become viewed as optional rather than fundamental..
Manson added: ‘The backlog in Crown Courts—widely cited as justification for the removal of juries could instead be addressed by increasing funding, recruiting more judges, restoring legal aid, and reopening closed courtrooms. These structural issues cannot be fixed by altering who determines guilt.
‘Public confidence in the justice system depends not only on fair outcomes but on fair processes. The symbolism of being judged by peers matters deeply to the British public. It is a reminder that justice is carried out not by distant elites but by ordinary citizens who bring shared values into the courtroom.
‘Removing juries risks creating a justice system that feels less participatory and more detached from the communities it serves.
”Furthermore, there is little evidence that judge-only trials are inherently quicker or more efficient in the long term. Complex cases often require extensive legal reasoning, and judges may take longer to deliver verdicts because they must produce detailed written judgments. Juries, by contrast, often reach decisions more swiftly and without the need for exhaustive documentation.
”There is also the practical concern that judge-only trials could result in a higher proportion of convictions. Judges tend to apply legal tests strictly and may place more weight on certain types of evidence—such as forensic or expert testimony—than a jury might. For defendants, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the stakes could be life-altering.
Civil liberties groups warn that once juries are removed, even partially, the democratic safeguard they provide becomes harder to restore.
Jury trials are one of the few remaining features of English law that place ordinary people at the centre of justice, ensuring that power does not become concentrated within a closed professional circle. Diluting this principle would represent a profound shift in British legal culture.
In the end, the question is not whether judges are competent—they undoubtedly are—but whether they should hold the exclusive power to determine guilt. For centuries, Britain has recognised that justice must be a collective responsibility.
Handing that responsibility solely to Crown Court judges risks undermining public trust, weakening democratic participation and deepening existing inequalities.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar