David Lammy’s Proposal: Reducing the Role of Juries

Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy has unveiled far-reaching plans to reduce the use of jury trials in England and Wales.

This presents them as necessary responses to deep-rooted problems in the criminal justice system.

The government points to a substantial backlog of unresolved cases, with tens of thousands of criminal trials waiting to be heard in Crown Courts. Some trials are currently being scheduled years in advance, placing intense pressure on courts, prosecutors, defence lawyers, victims, and defendants alike.

Lammy and his allies describe the situation as a “courts emergency” that requires bold intervention to prevent further delays and loss of confidence in the justice system.

Speed and Capacity as the Central Justification

A central argument for limiting jury trials is speed.

Government figures suggest that non-jury, judge-only trials conducted in newly proposed “swift courts” could take around 20% less time than traditional jury trials. The stated aim is to free up capacity in Crown Courts and reduce waiting times across the system.

Lammy has also argued that granting magistrates increased sentencing powers and diverting more cases away from Crown Courts would ease pressure throughout the justice system.

These proposals sit within a broader reform agenda examined by the union in its analysis of the Crown Court backlog and systemic delay.

The Leveson Review and Wider Reform Agenda

The government has linked these proposals to recommendations made by former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson, who reviewed the criminal courts earlier in 2025.

Leveson’s review was commissioned in response to persistent court backlogs that intensified during the pandemic and were compounded by long-standing issues with court infrastructure, staffing, and funding.

His review suggested that, in certain contexts, the use of juries could be limited in order to improve efficiency without dismantling the justice system entirely.

Stated Reasons for the Proposals

The Crown Court backlog has grown to tens of thousands of cases.
Victims, witnesses, and defendants are waiting years for cases to conclude.
Jury trials are described as time-consuming, expensive, and logistically complex.
The government argues that faster trials will restore confidence in justice.
Pressure on prisons and probation services is cited as part of a wider system under strain.
The reforms are presented as emergency measures rather than permanent ideological change.

Removal of Jury Trials for Lower-Level Offences

Defendants facing potential sentences of up to three years would no longer automatically qualify for jury trial.
These cases would be heard in new judge-only “swift courts”.
The stated aim is to reduce trial length and free up Crown Court capacity.

Expansion of Magistrates’ Court Powers

Magistrates would gain increased sentencing powers, potentially up to 18 months imprisonment.
More cases would be diverted away from Crown Courts.
This is intended to reduce pressure on higher courts and speed up case throughput.

Reduction of Defendant Choice

For “either-way” offences, defendants may lose the right to elect trial by jury.
Courts would decide whether a case proceeds in a magistrates’ court or Crown Court.
The government argues this prevents unnecessary escalation of cases.

Judge-Only Trials for Certain Complex Cases

Some complex fraud and financial crime cases could be tried without juries.
Judges would determine guilt alone, based on written and oral evidence.
The justification given is that juries struggle with highly technical material.

Changes to Jury Composition and Process

Proposals include exploring smaller juries or streamlined jury procedures.
Judges may gain greater discretion over juror selection and suitability.
These changes are framed as efficiency and fairness measures.

Safeguards Claimed by the Government

Serious offences such as murder, rape, and violent crime would retain jury trials.
The government states that judicial independence and fairness will be preserved.
The reforms are described as targeted and proportionate, not an abolition of juries.

This article sets out the government’s proposals in full so that members are informed ahead of detailed scrutiny.

The historical importance of jury trial is examined in the first article in this series, while the Workers of England Union’s objections will be set out in the third and final piece, challenging the case for reducing juries.