UK Plans Major Cutback to Jury Trials as Crown Court Backlog Nears 80,000
Government argues judge-only cases will speed justice; opponents warn the reforms risk fairness and public trust
The right to trial by jury in England and Wales is facing a major rollback under plans unveiled by the government in December 2025, part of an effort to clear an overloaded criminal-court system.
Around half of cases currently tried before juries — including many “either-way” offences such as theft, assault or some fraud cases — would instead be heard by a judge alone or by magistrates under a new scheme of “swift courts.” Serious crimes such as murder, rape and manslaughter would still warrant jury trials.
Justice Secretary David Lammy said the reforms respond to a “courts emergency”: nearly 80,000 cases are pending in the Crown Court, some scheduled as far out as 2030. He argued that judge-only trials are estimated to take twenty percent less time than jury trials and would bring swifter verdicts for victims and accused alike.
The overhaul draws on recommendations from a review by former judge Brian Leveson, who warned the system risked collapse without structural change.
Under the proposals, defendants facing offences punishable by up to three years—raised from the prior two-year threshold—could lose the right to opt for a jury trial.
Judges would also be empowered to hear some “complex or lengthy” cases such as financial-fraud trials without a jury.
Magistrates’ sentencing powers would increase, with maximum custodial sentences rising to eighteen months.
Supporters of the reforms emphasise the human cost of persistent delays: long waits have led many victims to abandon cases, sometimes after years of delay, particularly in sexual-offence prosecutions.
The government says the changes will prioritise victims and restore timeliness in a system under extreme strain.
But legal practitioners, civil-rights groups and opposition politicians warn that limiting jury trials would erode a fundamental constitutional safeguard and may undermine public confidence in justice.
They argue that the backlog stems not from juries themselves, but from chronic underfunding, shortages of judges and court infrastructure problems.
Questions have also been raised about fairness and transparency: jury panels often reflect broader community representation, a check some fear could be lost when cases are left to judges alone.
As Parliament prepares to debate the reforms, the UK stands at a crossroads — balancing the urgent need to clear the courts’ backlog against the centuries-old tradition of trial by one’s peers and the rights it seeks to protect.
Around half of cases currently tried before juries — including many “either-way” offences such as theft, assault or some fraud cases — would instead be heard by a judge alone or by magistrates under a new scheme of “swift courts.” Serious crimes such as murder, rape and manslaughter would still warrant jury trials.
Justice Secretary David Lammy said the reforms respond to a “courts emergency”: nearly 80,000 cases are pending in the Crown Court, some scheduled as far out as 2030. He argued that judge-only trials are estimated to take twenty percent less time than jury trials and would bring swifter verdicts for victims and accused alike.
The overhaul draws on recommendations from a review by former judge Brian Leveson, who warned the system risked collapse without structural change.
Under the proposals, defendants facing offences punishable by up to three years—raised from the prior two-year threshold—could lose the right to opt for a jury trial.
Judges would also be empowered to hear some “complex or lengthy” cases such as financial-fraud trials without a jury.
Magistrates’ sentencing powers would increase, with maximum custodial sentences rising to eighteen months.
Supporters of the reforms emphasise the human cost of persistent delays: long waits have led many victims to abandon cases, sometimes after years of delay, particularly in sexual-offence prosecutions.
The government says the changes will prioritise victims and restore timeliness in a system under extreme strain.
But legal practitioners, civil-rights groups and opposition politicians warn that limiting jury trials would erode a fundamental constitutional safeguard and may undermine public confidence in justice.
They argue that the backlog stems not from juries themselves, but from chronic underfunding, shortages of judges and court infrastructure problems.
Questions have also been raised about fairness and transparency: jury panels often reflect broader community representation, a check some fear could be lost when cases are left to judges alone.
As Parliament prepares to debate the reforms, the UK stands at a crossroads — balancing the urgent need to clear the courts’ backlog against the centuries-old tradition of trial by one’s peers and the rights it seeks to protect.
