A Constitutional Shortcut: Why Restricting Jury Trials Is the Wrong Answer to the Court’s Backlog
When David Lammy MP announced proposals to restrict jury trials in England and Wales, he presented them as a response to a justice system in “emergency mode.” With Crown Court delays stretching toward the end of the decade, judge-only trials are cast as a pragmatic way to deliver justice more quickly.
But proposals of this scale are never mere administrative tweaks. They represent a profound constitutional shift: moving significant categories of offences from the hands of jurors into the hands of single judges. Before discarding a centuries-old safeguard, we should ask whether this “solution” misdiagnoses the problem and threatens to create new ones.
Juries: A Constitutional Safeguard, Not a Luxury
For over 800 years, juries have stood between the individual and the state. They are not an ornament of tradition but a structural check on authority.
Jurors bring community experience and diversity of perspective into the courtroom which is something a largely homogenous judiciary cannot replicate. Multiple decision-makers also guard against unconscious bias and “case-hardening,” where repeated exposure to similar cases can dull judicial objectivity.
A verdict delivered by twelve citizens carries democratic legitimacy that a lone judge cannot easily match. At a time of declining trust in institutions, that legitimacy matters. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done and seen by the public themselves.
The Case for Restricting Juries and Why It Fails
- “Jury trials are causing the backlog.”
This is simply untrue. The causes of delay are well established: chronic under-investment; shortages of barristers, judges, and court staff; limited courtroom capacity; failing contractors; unreliable digital systems; and an overburdened legal aid framework.
If a house has subsidence, wallpapering faster doesn’t fix it. Removing juries leaves the structural damage untouched.
- “Judge-only trials will be quicker.”
Possibly, but only on paper. The government’s claim of a 20% time saving ignores the hours judges will spend writing reasoned verdicts. When juries retire to deliberate, judges move on to other work. Without juries, the entire courtroom falls silent while the judge considers the case.
Any supposed efficiency risks evaporating and in practice, may create further delay.
The same applies to staffing proposals. Drafting part-time judges (recorders) into “swift courts” simply removes them from existing trial work. With too few advocates and judges already, the effect is predictable: slower progress, not faster.
- “Only less serious offences will lose juries.”
This is misleading. Many serious offences carry sentences under the proposed three-year threshold including many sexual offences, including some against children.
The plan also rests on magistrates predicting sentence length from extremely limited early evidence, often based on unreliable police summaries. This will trigger more adjournments, not fewer.
Multi-defendant cases highlight the chaos this creates. If one defendant faces an offence where a long sentence is predicted, and another a lesser charge likely to fall under the three-year threshold, do they receive different trial modes? What if one pleads guilty mid-process? Such scenarios create great confusion and likely further delays.
- “Victims need quicker trials.”
Undeniably true. But restricting juries does nothing to fix the real sources of delay: multi-year charging decisions, digital evidence mountains, and a prosecution service stretched to breaking point. None of these bottlenecks are caused by juries, and none will be solved by removing them.
Seventy thousand cases already in the system will be untouched by these changes. At current capacity, they will take until 2030 to clear. Victims deserve better, but this reform does not deliver it.
The Slippery Slope
History shows that once constitutional protections are diluted, they rarely return. If jury restrictions are justified today on grounds of expediency or cost, what prevents further erosion during the next crisis?
Temporary measures have a habit of becoming permanent.
Public Confidence Is Not Guaranteed
At a time of heightened criticism and mistrust of those in positions of power, jury trials remain one of the few features of criminal justice that enjoy broad public support. They disperse responsibility, increase transparency, and empower citizens to scrutinise state power.
Juries have long exercised democratic judgment, illustrated by occasional acquittals based not necessarily on the evidence, but on the rejection of prosecutorial overreach. Removing this safety valve risks concentrating power in the hands of the state and deepening public suspicion.
Jury service also educates the public about the justice system and opens its processes to ordinary citizens. The answer to strained public confidence is more transparency and participation, not less.
A Better Way Forward: Invest, Don’t Retrench
Delays in the Crown Court are real and harmful. But restricting juries tackles the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
- Fund the courts properly
Reopen closed courtrooms, recruit more judges and staff, and repair the failing infrastructure.
- Modernise case management
Digitisation must enhance efficiency, not simply replicate paper in PDF form. Early disclosure and proper scheduling would produce more timely guilty pleas and fewer vacated trials.
- Restore legal aid
Both prosecution and defence require sustainable funding. The exodus of young barristers, especially women, is a direct consequence of unmanageable caseloads and delayed payment.
- Reserve judge-only trials for true exceptions
Where intimidation or national security demands it, judge-only trials may be justified. These should remain rare however, and not the norm.
Conclusion: Speed Matters but Fairness Matters More
We all want a justice system that works faster, yet a system in crisis cannot be fixed by dismantling the very institutions that ensure fairness and legitimacy. A jury trial is not an administrative inconvenience, it is a cornerstone of democracy. The backlog is not caused by juries; it is the result of previous political choices.
If we are truly committed to justice, we must invest in the system, not hollow out its foundations. The shortcut being offered leads us somewhere we should not go.
Llewellyn Culver-Evans
Caroline Skeet
Genevieve Moss
Francis Howard
Emma Richards
Marie-Armance Renaud
Creanna Dodson
Guy Cecil
