By Ben Kerrigan-
A senior Conservative figure has warned that plans to scale back jury trials in England and Wales could place judges at greater risk of physical attack, intensifying an already heated debate over proposed reforms to the criminal justice system.
Robert Buckland, who previously served as justice secretary, said the removal of juries in a wider range of criminal cases could leave judges more exposed to retaliation from convicted offenders and their families. His comments come as the government pushes forward with legislation aimed at reducing a record backlog of cases in the Crown Court, a move that has drawn criticism from across the legal profession.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The proposals, introduced under David Lammy, would see many cases that currently require a jury instead decided by a judge alone, particularly those involving less serious offences with shorter potential sentences.
Supporters argue the reforms are necessary to speed up justice and prevent further delays, while critics warn they risk undermining fundamental legal protections and altering the balance of the judicial system.
Central to the controversy is the question of judicial safety. Buckland and other senior legal figures argue that juries provide not only a democratic safeguard but also a protective structural buffer for judges by distributing responsibility across 12 members of the public.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Legal analyses of proposed reforms note that jury trials dilute individual accountability by requiring collective decision-making, whereas judge-only trials concentrate responsibility in a single decision-maker.
This shift, critics warn, could leave judges more exposed, as senior judicial figures have already raised “grave security concerns” that removing juries may increase the visibility of judges and heighten the risk of intimidation or violence from disgruntled defendants or their associates.
These concerns have been echoed by senior members of the judiciary. Sue Carr has warned of “grave security concerns” if judge-only trials are expanded, noting that judges who regularly sit in the same courts could become predictable targets for disgruntled defendants.
In separate remarks, the Lady Chief Justice highlighted that the visibility of judges combined with the removal of jury anonymity could heighten the risk of intimidation or violence. The issue is not purely theoretical; reports indicate that abuse directed at judges, including online threats, has already been increasing in recent years.
Legal experts say the concern reflects a broader shift in how accountability is perceived within the justice system. Juries, drawn from the public, serve as a collective decision-making body, making it harder to attribute responsibility for a verdict to any one individual. By contrast, judge-only trials concentrate that responsibility in a single figure, potentially altering both the perception and reality of risk.
The Ministry of Justice has acknowledged these concerns but maintains that safeguards will be in place. Officials have emphasised that serious offences, including murder and rape, will continue to be tried by jury, and that judicial security remains a priority. However, critics argue that even a partial reduction in jury trials could have significant consequences for the safety and independence of the judiciary.
The proposed changes are part of a broader effort to address a mounting backlog in the criminal courts, which has reached tens of thousands of cases. Government officials argue that without reform, delays could stretch for years, undermining confidence in the justice system and leaving victims waiting too long for resolution.
Under the plans, cases carrying sentences of up to three years could be heard by a judge alone rather than a jury, a shift that would affect a substantial portion of criminal proceedings. The reforms form part of the wider Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament and has already passed an initial Commons vote.
Supporters of the policy, including Lammy, argue that the changes are a pragmatic response to an overstretched system. They point to the need for faster trials and more efficient use of court resources, particularly in the wake of pandemic-related delays that exacerbated existing pressures.
However, opposition to the reforms has been widespread and vocal. Legal organisations, barristers, and some politicians have warned that limiting jury trials risks eroding a cornerstone of British justice. The right to be tried by a jury has long been seen as a fundamental safeguard against state overreach, ensuring that ordinary citizens play a role in determining guilt or innocence.
Critics also question whether the proposed changes will achieve their intended goal. Some argue that the backlog is primarily the result of underfunding, court closures, and staffing shortages rather than the use of juries. Without addressing these underlying issues, they say, reducing jury trials may offer only limited relief while introducing new risks.
The political dimension of the debate has further intensified scrutiny. Opposition parties have accused the government of undermining civil liberties, while some members of the governing party have expressed reservations about the scale and speed of the proposed reforms. The issue has become a flashpoint in broader discussions about the future of the justice system and the balance between efficiency and fairness.
The debate over jury trials touches on fundamental questions about the nature of justice in a modern democracy. For centuries, juries have been regarded as a vital link between the legal system and the public, providing a check on judicial authority and reinforcing the legitimacy of verdicts. Jury trial
Removing or limiting that role represents a significant shift, one that could reshape how justice is delivered and perceived. Proponents argue that reform is necessary to ensure the system remains functional in the face of growing demand. Opponents counter that efficiency should not come at the expense of core principles.
The warnings about judicial safety add a new dimension to this debate, highlighting the potential human cost of structural changes. If judges are indeed placed at greater risk, the implications extend beyond individual cases to the broader integrity of the legal system.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar