In a swift policy reversal, Justice Secretary Alex Norris announced that the government will abandon its proposal to cut the number of jury trials in England and Wales, a move that had drawn sharp criticism from lawyers, victims’ groups and several Labour MPs. The decision follows intense pressure after the public outcry and concerns that the plan would leave the already strained criminal courts even more vulnerable. Norris said the strength of feeling on the proposals prompted the change, and he emphasised the administration’s commitment to reducing the backlog of cases that now exceeds 81,000, with projections suggesting it could reach 100,000 without intervention. The reversal means the judiciary will retain the traditional jury system for the vast majority of cases, while only a narrow range of complex fraud trials will be heard without a jury.
U-turn After Public and Professional Backlash
Lawyers, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association swiftly welcomed the U-turn, describing it as a necessary retreat from a dangerous experiment. Geoffrey Robertson, founder of Doughty Street Chambers, warned that scrapping the right to a jury trial would betray a centuries‑old legal tradition and would not meaningfully ease the courtroom bottleneck. Even some Labour MPs voiced opposition, arguing that the proposal risked eroding public confidence in a system already under severe pressure.
Details of the Revised Approach
The original scheme, championed by then Justice Secretary David Lammy under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, would have removed jury trials for defendants facing sentences of up to three years and expanded magistrates’ sentencing powers from a 12‑month maximum to 18 months, with a possible extension to two years. While the government retains the plan to limit judge‑only trials to a small number of lengthy, technical fraud cases where a jury is deemed inappropriate, it will also keep Lammy’s amendment that removes a defendant’s right to elect a crown‑court jury for “either‑way” offences, delegating that choice to magistrates instead. The Ministry of Justice argues that this revised route will allow the system to address the backlog more quickly by avoiding the set‑up time required for new judge‑only benches, rather than by fundamentally altering the trial structure.
Reactions from Legal and Victim Groups
Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, praised the swift action but cautioned that increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers and stripping defendants of their electoral right could deepen existing disparities. She highlighted that women, black, mixed‑race and older people are more likely to opt for a jury, and warned that the proposal could exacerbate distrust among minoritised communities already wary of a justice system stretched to capacity. The Law Society echoed these concerns, urging the government to accompany the policy shift with substantial investment in legal aid and court infrastructure.
Government’s Alternative Measures
Justice Secretary Norris outlined a suite of alternative initiatives aimed at tackling the backlog without altering the fundamental jury framework. Courts minister Sarah Sackman KC suggested that artificial intelligence could be employed to streamline case listing, while expanded virtual hearings and stricter punctuality requirements for defendants are expected to improve courtroom efficiency. The government also reaffirmed its commitment to record investment in the judiciary, positioning the revised approach as a pragmatic step toward delivering swifter justice while preserving the safeguards inherent in a jury trial.
Why it Matters
The reversal underscores the government’s acknowledgment that rapid, sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system risk undermining public trust and worsening the very backlog they seek to alleviate; by preserving jury trials and focusing on incremental efficiency gains, the administration aims to restore confidence among victims, defendants and legal professionals while still confronting the daunting challenge of a looming 100,000‑case surge if no substantive changes are implemented.
