By Ann Higgins
“Are you in favour of Starmer scrapping jury trials then?” asked my Reform-supporting fellow rugby fan as we were waiting for our beloved Reds to run out onto the pitch to take on the visitors from Hinkley. “I beg your pardon, George, I wasn’t aware that Starmer was scrapping all jury trials,” I replied. “I don’t think that’s quite what he’s doing” I continued, “but if he were, would you be in favour of it?” “Definitely” said George, displaying none of the suspicion of a two-tier judicial system expressed by many of his political persuasion. Drawing on his own experience of being on two juries, he went on “It takes far too long and most of the other jurors didn’t have a clue about what was happening”. Further discussion was cut off by the teams running out onto the pitch and our turning our attention to the match, but it prompted me to try to find out just what the proposals are and to consider what I think about them.
Discovering exactly what is planned proved harder than I had imagined. First stop was the Leveson Report commissioned in December 2024 by the then Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood. Dismayed by the appalling backlog of trials which had built up under previous administrations mainly due to a combination of covid and long-term underfunding, she sought from Sir Brian Leveson, former KC and Lord Chief Justice, proposals which would shorten trials, reduce waiting times and make the overstretched system more efficient while still meeting the need for justice to be done and be seen to be done, and public confidence in the system maintained.
When Sir Brian reported just 6 months later, (Sir Humphrey would doubtless have been very dismayed by this wanton lack of delay) as well as the introduction of a new court division presided over by a judge and two magistrates, the key proposals were to remove the right to a jury trial for offences with a maximum sentence of two years or less, the introduction of judge-only trials for complex fraud cases and any defendants who chose it, and reclassifying some “either-way” offences, (ie those that can be tried either in the Magistrate’s Court or the Crown Court) as triable only in the Magistrate’s Court.
These proposals were vigorously opposed by among others the Bar Council which responded:
- We have continuously opposed proposals to curtail jury trials because there is no evidence that their removal would reduce the backlog nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced. This change would compromise public trust and confidence in our criminal justice system
- The criminal justice system and criminal Bar desperately need further investment, including match-funding criminal pupillages
- The government should remove the cap on sitting days to ensure courts can work at full capacity to reduce the backlog
- An immediate uplift of 15% to criminal prosecution and defence fees to provide enough publicly funded barristers to meet the demand
- Criminal procedure rules should be amended to provide greater flexibility for hearings and to allow virtual courts which do not require a court room
Despite these objections, last month the current Lord Chancellor David Lammy (who took over in September this year) proposed going much further than Leveson, namely that all but the most serious cases (rape, murder, manslaughter) should be tried by a judge and two magistrates. Wholly predictably even greater dismay was expressed by the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, and not a few Labour MPs, which was perhaps what then caused a swift amendment to the proposals so that they are somewhat closer to those made originally by Leveson back in June. These were announced in the House of Commons by the Lord Chancellor on 2 December, and include (along with his comments as they appear in Hansard for 2 December 2025).
- The creation of new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. (Sir Brian actually recommended that these judges sit with two magistrates.) Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.
- Restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials – a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up.
- Limiting appeals from the Magistrate’s courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further. (I understand that this has already been abandoned.)
- An increase in Magistrate’s Court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure.
- When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
This then is the “blueprint for change”. I think it strikes a reasonable balance between on the one hand the need to modernise and improve the system, and on the other retaining jury trial for serious cases thus hopefully maintaining trust in the courts. As for speed, along with the new investments in courts plus an increase in sitting days, and extra funding for legal aid to ensure that there are enough lawyers to represent the greater throughput of defendants, this is a good start, but will it bring down the backlog quickly enough for those who have been waiting not months but years for their day in court? Whether they be a defendant awaiting trial who has been denied bail, or a victim waiting possibly years to give evidence about the terrible wrong that was done to them, they deserve better than they are getting at the moment. A draft Bill is promised for the spring, with the hope it may get through Parliament by the end of 2026. Let’s hope that Sir Humphrey’s successors don’t succeed in delaying it any further.
And for those who may be interested, Redruth beat Hinkley 27-10. Next week Camborne at home. George and I will be there.
