Reformers blast UK plan to scrap jury trials as silencing 'voice of people'

MANCHESTER, England (CN) — Critics including criminal barristers, academics and justice campaigners are reacting sharply to a proposal to do away with most Jury trials in England and Wales.

The Criminal Bar Association said it has been warning ministers and the public about the dangers of moving away from jury trials.

The association, which represents specialist criminal barristers in England and Wales, said most coverage of the government’s plans supported its position that judge-only trials were a step too far.

In an open letter, the group said, “A change such as this will require primary legislation, and the focus will shift to Parliament itself as and when a draft bill is published. There was no mention of these proposals in Labour’s manifesto, and there is likely to be opposition in both the Commons and the Lords.”

U.K. Justice Secretary David Lammy told Parliament last week the changes would ease record delays, pointing toward Crown Court backlogs that could hit 100,000 cases by 2028.

“Swift courts” run by judges and community magistrates will hear most lower-level cases for crimes likely to lead to less than three years in prison. Murder, rape, robbery and other serious crimes would still go before a jury.

Lammy said the new system should move cases 20% faster, warning that some charges filed now may not reach trial until 2030. He highlighted that six in 10 rape cases collapse because victims walk away rather than having to endure years of waiting.

But academics and justice campaigners said the plan risks harming public confidence.

Professor Claire McGourlay of the University of Manchester said judge-only trials may speed hearings but cannot be “the sole measure of a fair criminal justice system.”

She said jury trials bring community involvement and transparency, and warned that narrowing that safeguard may disadvantage defendants who rely on diverse juries to counter institutional bias. “I am so disappointed with David Lammy and the Labour Party,” she said.

McGourlay, who founded the Manchester Innocence Project, a branch of the organization that was founded in the U.S. in 1992, said her research into racial bias on the bench shows why community judgment matters.

“Moving largely to judge-only trials could diminish trust and heighten fears of decisions being made by judges alone,” she said. This “increases the potential risk of miscarriages of justice, particularly in cases where credibility, race, context or community standards play a central role.”

The deeper problem, she added, is chronic underfunding: “The criminal justice system has been left to rot.”

Theo Gavrielides, a barrister and director of the Restorative Justice for All International Institute, said ministers should not assume victims want quicker trials at the cost of jury participation.

He said the institute’s studies show victims want restorative justice and greater involvement in decisions, not less. Removing juries takes away “the voice of the people,” he said.

He pointed to decades of research showing that restorative justice increases satisfaction for both victims and offenders and often leads to better outcomes.

Other research found that post-traumatic stress symptoms scores for victims were lower for those who went through restorative justice than for those who only went through the criminal justice system.

“Our research showed that the more serious the crime, the more likely victims and offenders would opt for restorative justice,” which in turn leads to “better justice outcomes including repair, healing, compensation, reintegration, recidivism and, yes, cutting down costs for the justice system.”

What reforms mean for defendants

The reforms end a defendant’s ability to choose a jury trial when a case could be handled in magistrates court or a new judge-only Crown Court.

Fraud and financial crime cases will also lose access to juries, following recommendations from a retired senior judge earlier this year.

Retired Court of Appeal Judge Brian Leveson began reviewing court delays in late 2024. In July, he said the system needed fundamental change to avoid “collapse.”

His options included removing juries from more trials and increasing the use of out-of-court cautions, a way of dealing with minor offenses without proceedings.

Lammy stopped short of adopting all of Leveson’s proposals but kept jury-free trials at the center of the reforms.

Magistrates will gain powers to hand down sentences of up to 18 months, with a two-year cap held in reserve.

Lammy said restricting jury trials will stop defendants “gaming the system” by choosing a slower route.

But the Labour government’s plan was not in its manifesto, and the Conservative Party called it a major constitutional shift.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said Lammy was “scrapping the institution he once lauded,” and asked why he thought he had a mandate to “rip up centuries of jury trials.”

Shadow roles in the U.K. are the opposition party’s answer to each cabinet position in the ruling government.

The Ministry of Justice said jury trials will remain mandatory for rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, human trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offenses.

Opponents argue the reforms will not affect the backlog because the fundamental issue is years of cuts to buildings, staff and legal aid.

The bill will go before Parliament in the coming months, with both house expected to challenge the scope of the changes.

Courthouse News reporter James Francis Whitehead is based in England.

Follow @jayfranklinlive