Jury trials for sentences under three years to be scrapped

[Peter C]

From BBC News early this afternoon:

Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years

The reforms are being brought in to tackle unprecedented delays in the Crown Court.

www.bbc.co.uk

Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years​

Jury trials in England and Wales for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years will be scrapped, the justice secretary has announced.
The reforms to the justice system include creating "swift courts" under the government's plan to tackle unprecedented delays in the court system.
Serious offences including murder, robbery and rape will still go before a jury, and volunteer community magistrates, who deal with the majority of all criminal cases, will take on even more work.
David Lammy said the reforms were "bold" but "necessary", but the Conservatives described the plans as the "beginning of the end of jury trials".
Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson was asked by the Lord Chancellor to come up with a series of proposals to reduce the backlog in the courts, in a process which began back in December 2024.
These proposals included jury-free trials and more out-of-court settlements like cautions.
In July, Sir Brian said "fundamental" reforms were needed to "reduce the risk of total system collapse".

-Peter

 

[gabrielhj07]

RIP Magna Carta, was fun while it lasted.

 

[zero]

RIP Magna Carta, was fun while it lasted.

I remember reading something about this before, so looked it up again. According to Wikipedia, the entire 1215 Magna Carta has been repealed and 60 out of 63 clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta were repealed between 1829 and 1969.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I remember reading something about this before, so looked it up again. According to Wikipedia, the entire 1215 Magna Carta has been repealed and 60 out of 63 clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta were repealed between 1829 and 1969.

More the principal of a right to trial by one’s peers.

 

[AlterEgo]

More the principal of a right to trial by one’s peers.

Hasn't been an unqualified right in this country for a long time, and in any case the trial by jury or peers is not a right enshrined in Magna Carta.

You will still be tried by your peers in a Magistrates' Court. The magistrates are lay people; they are your peers.

 

[DarloRich]

I do wish people understood what Magna Carta actually was!

You will still be tried by your peers in a Magistrates' Court. The magistrates are lay people; they are your peers.

As long as a lay magistrate = absolutely! Anyone can apply to be a magistrate. More should.

 

[jfollows]

I looked into applying to be a magistrate, but the arrogant nonsense that was required of me before they’d even “consider” my application put me off. Yes, of course they have to weed out certain people, so probably can’t win, but from the perspective of a reasonably honest and knowledgeable person I though “stuff it, my committment to public service isn’t that great”.

I felt that the majority of people who would apply wanted to use “magistrate” as some kind of CV step.

 

[Cdd89]

Giving that serving on a jury is compulsory, the rights of people not to be unduly inconvenienced by serving on one has to be considered. So overall I think it's actually right that it is restricted to the most serious cases.

 

[styles]

I felt that the majority of people who would apply wanted to use “magistrate” as some kind of CV step.

I think I've only ever known one magistrate. He definitely wasn't in it for some sort of CV step, and is one of the loveliest guys I know. I think, like me, he had a bumbling interest in the criminal justice system. I couldn't be a magistrate though; I think it would just me in despair.

 

[Ostrich]

I looked into applying to be a magistrate, but the arrogant nonsense that was required of me before they’d even “consider” my application put me off. Yes, of course they have to weed out certain people, so probably can’t win, but from the perspective of a reasonably honest and knowledgeable person I though “stuff it, my committment to public service isn’t that great”.

I felt that the majority of people who would apply wanted to use “magistrate” as some kind of CV step.

As did I, about 15 years ago, with exactly the same result. Their attitude to my enquiry made a mockery of all the advertising around that time for more people to step forward.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I wonder if the Justice Secretary has read this document? He may recognise it…

Chapter 4 is particularly informative. On page 31 we learn that “Juries are a success story of our justice system”, and that “Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today.”

Page 32 tells us that “the system as a whole is working.”

Unsurprisingly, many of the opposing comments could have been lifted straight from his own report. Mr Lammy told the Commons that the “facts had changed”, but failed to bring us up to speed with what those facts might be? I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

 

[styles]

I wonder if the Justice Secretary has read this document? He may recognise it…

Chapter 4 is particularly informative. On page 31 we learn that “Juries are a success story of our justice system”, and that “Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today.”

Page 32 tells us that “the system as a whole is working.”

Unsurprisingly, many of the opposing comments could have been lifted straight from his own report. Mr Lammy told the Commons that the “facts had changed”, but failed to bring us up to speed with what those facts might be? I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

Exactly. It strikes me as opportunism and short-term thinking. Getting the court backlogs down will be something they can proudly proclaim to voters and they'll lap it up, as most people don't need to go before a jury even as it stands today. It'll become normalised then out of sight, out of mind.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder if the Justice Secretary has read this document? He may recognise it…

Chapter 4 is particularly informative. On page 31 we learn that “Juries are a success story of our justice system”, and that “Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today.”

Page 32 tells us that “the system as a whole is working.”

Unsurprisingly, many of the opposing comments could have been lifted straight from his own report. Mr Lammy told the Commons that the “facts had changed”, but failed to bring us up to speed with what those facts might be? I won’t hold my breath for an answer.

This is a report about disproportionate outcomes for people based on their ethnicity in 2017, not about court backlogs in 2025. You have to read those words in the context in which they are printed.

 

[gabrielhj07]

This is a report about disproportionate outcomes for people based on their ethnicity in 2017, not about court backlogs in 2025. You have to read those words in the context in which they are printed.

I have done, and it doesn't change the question.

If Lammy believed what he wrote in 2017, he needs to address why he thinks changing things is a good idea. So far he has not done so, and it seems a purely political decision as @styles says.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have done, and it doesn't change the question.

If Lammy believed what he wrote in 2017, he needs to address why he thinks changing things is a good idea.

But he's only saying jury trials deliver fair outcomes which are not disproportionate for ethnic minorities in that report.

He isn't saying that has changed.

What has changed in the intervening 8 years is the court backlog, which he seems to have been quite clear about.

 

[nanstallon]

Time may be saved by having a summary trial in front of magistrates, but there may then be more appeals as a result of not being allowed to choose trial by jury and feeling disgruntled by having been found guilty by the magistrates.

 

[gabrielhj07]

But he's only saying jury trials deliver fair outcomes which are not disproportionate for ethnic minorities in that report.

He isn't saying that has changed.

What has changed in the intervening 8 years is the court backlog, which he seems to have been quite clear about.

So it’s a change of priorities since becoming a minister. That’s fine, but he still has yet to explain his decision, beyond blaming the tories for everything.

 

[AlterEgo]

So it’s a change of priorities since becoming a minister. That’s fine, but he still has yet to explain his decision, beyond blaming the tories for everything.

But he has? He's literally explained why it is happening; court backlogs which have been steadily increasing. What do you want him to say? I don't understand what your issue is with him.

 

[Senex]

Different people seem to have had very different experiences of jury service, and I'm well aware that some of them are strong defenders of the system as a result of their experience. My own jury service at a Central London crown court some years ago was deeply disillusioning, leaving me with a measure of respect for only one part of the whole set-up—the part played by the judges themselves. I felt very strongly at the time that the sooner we saw a move to the continental inquisitorial system coupled with judges giving a reasoned decision (as Lammy talks about in his proposals), the better and fairer it would be for all here.

 

[gabrielhj07]

court backlogs which have been steadily increasing.

He would have done well to notice that before the last election, and even better to formulate some sort of policy on it!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2025 ==

Different people seem to have had very different experiences of jury service, and I'm well aware that some of them are strong defenders of the system as a result of their experience. My own jury service at a Central London crown court some years ago was deeply disillusioning, leaving me with a measure of respect for only one part of the whole set-up—the part played by the judges themselves. I felt very strongly at the time that the sooner we saw a move to the continental inquisitorial system coupled with judges giving a reasoned decision (as Lammy talks about in his proposals), the better and fairer it would be for all here.

This is a sensible view and I agree with it. Perhaps the Rt Hon Member for Tottenham could adopt it as a justification for what he’s already announced?

 

[jfollows]

It’s something I’m instinctively against.
Our criminal justice system is broken because successive governments of all hues have starved it of money.
This government ought to be fixing this by reversing this trend, not by introducing new shortcuts.
The single justice system introduced by a previous government is a mess, unaccountable and prone to error because of it.
This latest proposal is just another error of the same sort.
I have plenty of admiration for judges, at least, but not really for magistrates. This seems to be a shortcut against the interests of justice to me.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is a sensible view and I agree with it.

Really? Just a few posts ago you were mourning the loss of Magna Carta and our right to be tried by our peers. Now you prefer European-style, judge-led inquisitorial proceedings?

He would have done well to notice that before the last election, and even better to formulate some sort of policy on it!

I don't think that's the job of the Shadow Foreign Secretary, to be fair.

 

[sprunt]

One of the most obnoxious parts of Lammy's justification of this for me was his assertion that people opting for jury trials for more minor crimes are "criminals playing the system". No, at the point they elect for a jury trial they aren't criminals, they are suspects. You'd think the Justice Secretary might be aware of that distinction and the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

It's incoherent anyway - if you think that people electing for jury trials are just playing the system, why are you happy for the people accused of the most serious crimes to continue doing so?

Our criminal justice system is broken because successive governments of all hues have starved it of money.

Yes, this. I've done jury duty twice, I can't remember the exact dates but it was once around 2010 and once around 2017. It was at the same court, and you could absolutely tell the funding had been slashed - the first time it was a well maintained, if entirely functional building, the second time it looked like no maintenance had been done since the first time and the jurors' canteen had been closed.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Really? Just a few posts ago you were mourning the loss of Magna Carta and our right to be tried by our peers. Now you prefer European-style, judge-led inquisitorial proceedings?

I have no strong opinion either way on jury trials. I am more interested in badly thought out policies being made up on the hoof. Apologies for the tongue in cheek nature of my Magna Carta comments!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't see how it will reduce court backlogs. If a trial is contested then you still need all the evidence to be heard. You'll still also have all the legal arguments before and during the trial. Many years ago I worked in the criminal law and it always surprised me how the jury were actually in the courtroom for only a relatively small portion of the overall time spent on a trial.

The only marginal time saving could be where someone who would be prepared to take their chances with a jury wouldn't be quite so prepared to take their chances with a judge, and so pleads guilty.

Technical, forensic, or otherwise complicated evidence doesn't tend to be an issue with the moderate offences that would be included in the change. You don't tend to get complex technical evidence for things like ABH or drug offences, which are the types of offences which are heard in the Crown Court and would also have a maximum sentence of three years or under.

I think this is just an opportunistic attempt to prevent juries from acquitting protestors. The Extinction Rebellion type offending won't usually attract sentences of more than three years so would be within scope. Juries have been remarkably content to acquit people, such as the Colston statute protestors, on conscience grounds, and that has really upset the Government. There's also a fair number of grannies about to be prosecuted on relatively minor terrorism charges. Howe embarrassing would it be if those pesky juries acquit them all on conscience grounds.

The one type of offending which would be best suited with professionally trained judges would be sexual offending. That has complex evidence and is particularly emotionally challenging for the victim to go through. Yet that's staying with a jury, even though juries are much more content to acquit because they generally still seem to believe the old tropes about how victims of sexual offences should behave. Make it make sense.

 

[brad465]

It’s something I’m instinctively against.
Our criminal justice system is broken because successive governments of all hues have starved it of money.
This government ought to be fixing this by reversing this trend, not by introducing new shortcuts.
The single justice system introduced by a previous government is a mess, unaccountable and prone to error because of it.
This latest proposal is just another error of the same sort.
I have plenty of admiration for judges, at least, but not really for magistrates. This seems to be a shortcut against the interests of justice to me.

The problem is the same folk who condemned taking shortcuts like this are often the same ones who shout against more public spending, not realising their contradiction.

 

[AY1975]

Different people seem to have had very different experiences of jury service, and I'm well aware that some of them are strong defenders of the system as a result of their experience. My own jury service at a Central London crown court some years ago was deeply disillusioning, leaving me with a measure of respect for only one part of the whole set-up—the part played by the judges themselves. I felt very strongly at the time that the sooner we saw a move to the continental inquisitorial system coupled with judges giving a reasoned decision (as Lammy talks about in his proposals), the better and fairer it would be for all here.

What exactly do you mean by the continental inquisitorial system? There is no pan-European criminal justice system: each country has its own system. Some other European countries have trial by jury and some do not. I believe that France, Belgium, Austria and Italy do, whilst Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden do not although I think Switzerland did until a few years ago. I would guess that the use or absence of jury trials in each country depends on history, on political and constitutional developments in that country over the centuries and how their justice systems have evolved.

AIUI in Germany defendants are normally tried by a panel of professional and lay judges or magistrates. I would guess that other countries that don't have jury trials have a similar system to that of Germany.

Also, I believe that the number of jurors per case varies from country to country in those countries that have jury trials, as does their precise role. In the UK, or at least in England and Wales, it is the jury alone who decide whether or not the defendant is guilty, whereas I believe that in some other countries the judge and jury together make that decision.

This now locked thread from 2021 on your experience of jury service may also be of interest: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/your-experience-of-jury-service.223590/

 

[jfollows]

The denial of justice because the state won't or can't afford it always seemed wrong to me. I'm glad that the proposal has been dropped.
For whatever reason, it seems to me that the Burnham government is getting these things right, whereas his predecessor didn't.
From https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...als-outcry-lawyers-centuries-old-right-courts:

Critics say scrapping of plans, which aimed to increase judge-alone trials to deliver swifter justice, leaves court system and victims vulnerable

Haroon Siddique Legal affairs correspondent
Sun 4 Oct 2026 00.01 BST

Ministers have scrapped plans that would have slashed the number of jury trials in England and Wales and replaced them with a judge sitting alone.
The proposals had sparked a fierce backlash from lawyers, who have welcomed the U-turn. But the victims’ commissioner expressed concern about the abandonment of measures drawn up by the then justice secretary, David Lammy, under Keir Starmer’s government, to tackle the record backlog in the courts.

There are almost 81,000 cases in the crown courts – with the number projected to hit 100,000 without the now-ditched changes – leaving victims and defendants waiting years for justice. The Ministry of Justice is selling the U-turn as a quicker way to address the problem, by saving the time it would take to set up a new judge-only crown court bench division.
The justice secretary, Alex Norris, said: “This government inherited criminal courts on the brink of collapse, with victims waiting years for their day in court. I remain committed to bringing down the backlog and delivering swifter justice for those who so desperately need it. But 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.
“This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring that under this government we do not have victims waiting endlessly for justice.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment.”

Lammy’s proposals came after a government-commissioned review by the former judge, Sir Brian Leveson, who recommended taking away the right to jury trial from thousands of defendants to prevent the criminal justice system from collapsing.

But critics, including Geoffrey Robertson, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, where Starmer, Lammy and the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, spent part of their professional careers, accused Labour of abandoning a centuries-old right and claiming that it would not reduce the backlogsubstantively. Some Labour MPs also opposed the move.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...tson-condemns-labour-plans-to-cut-jury-trials
Legislation would have removed jury trials for defendants who were likely to receive a sentence of up to three years.
Ministers have not abandoned judge-only trials altogether, but they will only be for a small number of especially lengthy and technical fraud cases where the judge decides a jury trial is not appropriate.
The government will also retain Lammy’s plans to take away the right of a defendant charged with an “either way” offence to decide whether they will be tried by a jury in the crown court or magistrates. Instead those decisions will be in the hands of magistrates.
And the planned increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers – from the current 12 months maximum to 18 months, with an option to extend to two years – will still go ahead.

Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, welcomed the new government’s “swift action” but said: “We underline that it is a dangerous experiment to increase sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect from defendants at a time when prisons are at capacity and the backlog of cases is accelerating in the magistrates courts.
She added: “We know that women, black people, mixed race people and older people elect jury trials more often than other groups and this proposal risks deepening existing disparities and exacerbating distrust in the justice system from minoritised communities.”
The Law Society of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association also welcomed the change of heart while expressing concern about pushing more cases to magistrates. The former additionally called for more investment, including in legal aid.
View image in fullscreen
‘Victims need hope,’ said Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian
The victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, said: “Victims are entitled to ask whether what remains will be enough to meet the challenge [of delivering swifter justice]. “Indeed, they are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be.

“The lessons from the prisons crisis should be clear: postponing difficult decisions rarely solves problems. More often, it simply stores them up for the future.

“Victims need hope. They need to know this is genuine reform that matches the scale of the challenge: reform that will alleviate their prolonged suffering, rather than an easy compromise that delivers only marginal improvements today while leaving both the justice system, and the victims who rely on it, vulnerable tomorrow.”
The courts minister, Sarah Sackman KC, said other steps to tackle the backlog could include using AI to help list cases, more virtual hearings and ensuring defendants arrive to court on time.