By Gabriel Princewill-
Legal institutions across the United Kingdom and Ireland have voiced strong opposition to Justice Secretary David Lammy’s plans to significantly curtail the use of jury trials in England and Wales, describing the proposals as a threat to an ancient legal tradition that underpins the criminal justice system.
The four bars representing England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have issued a joint statement of “deep concern,” framing the government’s proposals as a fundamental challenge to principles of justice and public confidence in courts.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Their unified stance marks one of the most coordinated responses from the legal profession to a policy initiative in recent years.
Lammy’s plans, outlined in late 2025, aim to address severe backlogs in the Crown Court system with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be heard by creating new judge‑only “swift courts” that would handle cases currently eligible for jury trials where sentences are likely to be three years or less.
The government argues that reducing reliance on juries for less serious cases could speed up proceedings and reduce delays that have left victims waiting years for justice.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
However, legal professionals argue that such reforms go well beyond pragmatic court management and threaten a central pillar of the justice system: the right to trial by one’s peers. Their objections draw on historical, constitutional and practical grounds.
Unified Legal Profession Pushes Back Against Reform
The joint statement issued by the four bars emphasised that trial by jury is a cornerstone of criminal justice in common law jurisdictions, representing democratic participation in the legal process and egalitarian decision‑making by ordinary citizens.
Bar leaders described the proposals as undermining public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly given the long history of jury trials in British jurisprudence.
Barbara Mills KC, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Riel Karmy‑Jones KC of the Criminal Bar Association and their counterparts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland voiced shared concern that removing juries from significant portions of the criminal docket “undermines justice as understood by the public” and departs from well‑established legal traditions.
Criminal Bar Association messages to members and public outreach have underscored broad resistance within the legal profession.
The association has maintained that efficiency matters, but fairness is not optional, and highlighted the role barristers and their organisations have played in educating politicians and the public about the implications of the government’s proposals. Numerous briefings and discussions with cross‑party MPs have been part of this effort.
Critics outside the bar have added weight to these concerns. Police and Crime Commissioners and human rights advocates have warned that limiting jury trials could erode other civil liberties, including free expression, and weaken protections for defendants and victims alike.
For example, research cited by the Free Speech Union found that acquittal rates in speech‑related cases can be higher in jury trials than in magistrates’ courts, raising alarms about the broader implications of reducing jury involvement.
Parliamentary voices have echoed the legal community’s unease. Chairs of Commons committees and cross‑bench MPs have demanded clear evidence from Lammy justifying why such sweeping changes are necessary especially given that many short trials contribute little to the overall backlog and that the fundamental causes of delays lie elsewhere in the system, including chronic underfunding.
Historical Principles and Practical Fears
Supporters of the traditional jury system emphasise its historical and democratic value. The right to trial by jury can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215, when the concept of judgment by peers was formalised as a safeguard against arbitrary rule.
Legal professionals argue that jury trials embody community values and provide a check against concentrated judicial power concerns that resonate with broader fears about concentrating decision‑making entirely in the hands of individual judges.
Opponents also point to practical drawbacks of removing juries. Judge‑only trials, unlike jury trials, do not benefit from a diversity of life experiences that jurors bring to decisions about credibility, community standards and context.
According to the bars’ joint statement, juries contribute to balanced and rounded decisions that reflect broad societal judgment rather than solely legal interpretation.
Legal figures have also warned that expanding magistrates’ powers and introducing swift courts could create “an untested layer of complexity” that risks further undermining confidence in the justice system.
Some argue that the historic jury system should be preserved while addressing backlog issues through resourcing and administrative reforms, rather than constitutional overhaul.
The backlash has not been limited to the bar. MPs across party lines, including Labour, the Liberal Democrats and others, have criticised Lammy’s proposals as a massive mistake that could penalise working‑class defendants and erode fundamental civil rights.
Lawmakers have highlighted that jury trials account for a relatively small percentage of total cases, questioning whether their removal really addresses systemic delays.
In Westminster debates, some MPs have stressed that the very existence of jury trials is symbolic of democratic engagement with the justice process, and surrendering it for administrative convenience could set a precedent that extends beyond criminal procedure.
Bar associations have underscored that the proposals go beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s original recommendations which suggested limiting jury trials but retaining meaningful lay participation presenting an even thicker departure from tradition.
Critics argue that any changes should first involve careful piloting and evidence‑based evaluation before dismantling long‑standing safeguards.
Public opinion has also been engaged, with commentators and advocacy groups emphasising that jury trials are not just a procedural formality, but a symbol of collective justice that binds legal systems with community values and shared standards.
Legal commentators warn that replacing this model with judge‑only verdicts risks creating a justice landscape that is more opaque and less representative of communal judgment.
With government preparing a potential primary legislation in early 2026, the united front of the legal profession and its allies sets the stage for a prolonged debate over the future of jury trials. The bar’s collective message to the Ministry of Justice is clear: reform is necessary, but not at the expense of what many consider a cornerstone of democratic justice the right to be judged by one’s peers.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar