Burnham scraps controversial plans to curb jury trials

Government abandons plan to widen judge-only criminal trials

Ninoda.com – Plans to reduce the use of juries in parts of the criminal courts have been withdrawn after a strong backlash from lawyers, campaigners and opposition politicians. Justice Secretary Alex Norris said the government had reconsidered proposals that would have allowed some Crown Court cases to be decided by a judge sitting alone.

The proposal had formed part of a wider package intended to tackle the severe case backlog in England and Wales. Ministers have argued that lengthy delays are harming both defendants and victims, while also adding pressure to an already strained prison system.

Under the abandoned approach, jury trials would have been reserved mainly for the most serious offences that must be heard in the Crown Court, including murder and rape. Other cases carrying possible sentences of up to three years could have been determined by a judge without a jury.

Less serious cases would have remained in magistrates’ courts. The changes would also have removed the ability of some defendants to seek a Crown Court jury trial where they believed it offered the fairest chance of acquittal.

Concern over an historic safeguard

Opponents said the reforms risked weakening a long-established protection within the justice system. Trial by jury has roots extending back roughly 800 years, and critics argued that removing juries from a broader range of cases would do little to resolve the underlying causes of court delays.

The proposal was first announced in December by former Justice Secretary David Lammy, following recommendations from a major review of the courts in England and Wales. It was presented alongside other substantial reforms intended to improve the speed and capacity of the criminal justice system.

Officials had said judge-only hearings would apply only to complicated fraud and financial cases. The Ministry of Justice also proposed keeping thousands of mid-level offences in magistrates’ courts, where volunteer magistrates decide cases without a jury.

Norris said that public and professional reaction had influenced his decision to reverse course. He stressed that reducing the backlog remained a central objective for the government.

“I have heard the strength of feeling on the proposals for increasing the number of judge-alone trials in the Crown Court and have made the decision to change course.”

He said the revised direction would allow work on improving the courts to begin sooner and prevent victims from facing prolonged waits for outcomes.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment. I remain committed to structural reform which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog.”

Backlog remains a major challenge

The criminal courts backlog stands at close to 81,000 cases. Delays have reached record levels for many people awaiting trial, whether they are defendants, victims or witnesses. The accumulated caseload grew significantly after reductions in court capacity before the pandemic and closures during national lockdowns.

Official estimates had suggested that the figure could rise to 100,000 before the next general election. Under a more severe scenario, the total might have doubled by 2035. More recently, however, there have been signs that the backlog is beginning to level off.

That improvement has followed a commitment to provide unlimited funding so that additional judges can sit in courtrooms that would otherwise remain unused. The policy reflects a practical problem at the heart of the debate: speeding up justice requires not simply different trial formats, but enough judges, courtrooms, legal professionals and support staff to process cases fairly.

Supporters of the withdrawal say that preserving juries need not prevent efforts to make courts more efficient. The government is still pursuing measures aimed at improving the treatment of victims and witnesses during trials, including proposed powers to stop unfair questioning about a complainant’s conduct and to help witnesses provide their strongest evidence.

Legal profession welcomes reversal

Andrew Thomas KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said barristers were pleased that the judge-only proposal had been dropped. He argued that juries remain vital to public confidence because they place factual decisions in the hands of ordinary citizens rather than a single legal professional.

“Justice needs juries.”

“Nothing inspires more public trust than 12 ordinary citizens from all walks of life deciding the facts of a case together.”

Thomas also welcomed the planned protections for people giving evidence at trial. But he cautioned that another part of the proposed reform package could still create serious difficulties: moving more cases from the Crown Court to magistrates’ courts while expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years.

He said the change could transfer around 25,000 cases annually away from the Crown Court, including approximately 5,500 jury trials. In his view, those figures include matters that cannot reasonably be treated as minor, such as assaults, sexual assaults, child abuse and grievous bodily harm.

“Our volunteer magistrates do an excellent job but they are completely unequipped to try complex, multi-day trials.”

Magistrates are volunteers and play an important role in the justice system, but Thomas said their limited numbers and the complexity of some cases made the proposed transfer particularly concerning. He warned that the policy could fail if such cases were pushed into magistrates’ courts without sufficient capacity.

The Conservatives described the reversal as a significant victory for those who had defended jury trials. The government now faces the task of showing that it can bring down court delays while retaining confidence in the fairness, independence and accessibility of criminal justice.