Jury Trials in England and Wales: What David Lammy’s Proposal to Scrap Most Juries Really Means
A leaked memo from Justice Secretary David Lammy has thrown one of the oldest pillars of British justice into the spotlight. Ministers are examining plans to remove jury trials for most criminal cases in England and Wales, keeping juries only for the gravest offenses such as murder, rape, and manslaughter. The change would mark the biggest shift in criminal justice in generations.
At its heart is a stark trade-off: a court system overwhelmed by a backlog of nearly 80,000 Crown Court cases, versus the centuries-old tradition that serious crimes are judged by ordinary citizens. The memo argues there is “no right” to a jury trial and calls for “drastic action.” Critics see something closer to a constitutional gamble.
This article explains what is being proposed, why it is happening now, the arguments on both sides, and how it could change the experience of justice for victims, defendants, and the wider public.
Key Points
Ministers are considering limiting jury trials to only the most serious crimes, with most Crown Court cases decided by a judge alone.
The plan aims to cut a massive Crown Court backlog of around 80,000 cases and speed up justice for victims and defendants.
A new “Crown Court Bench Division” would handle mid-level cases without juries, going further than earlier reform proposals.
Legal bodies warn that shrinking jury trials risks eroding public trust, increasing miscarriages of justice, and concentrating power in the hands of judges.
The debate sits at the intersection of court funding, civil liberties, and political pressure to look tough on crime yet efficient on public spending.
What happens next will depend on how far the government pushes the plan into legislation and how strongly Parliament, judges, and the legal profession resist.
Background
Jury trials in England and Wales have deep roots, often traced back to clauses in Magna Carta and later developments that turned local inquests into formal juries. Over time, the idea took hold that when the state accuses someone of a serious crime, that accusation should be tested in open court before a group of ordinary citizens.
Today, juries sit mainly in the Crown Court, deciding guilt or innocence in serious criminal cases. Magistrates’ courts, which handle the bulk of lower-level offending, use lay magistrates or district judges instead of juries. Defendants charged with “either-way” offenses—crimes that can be tried in either magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court—often choose a jury trial, especially when they feel a panel of peers may be more sympathetic or skeptical of police and prosecution evidence.
The system has been under strain for years. Austerity reduced court budgets, closed buildings, and cut staff. The pandemic forced trials to be postponed or adapted, making a bad backlog worse. Delays of two to three years in serious cases, particularly sexual offenses, have become common.
In June 2025, an independent review led by former judge Sir Brian Leveson warned of “total system collapse” without major reforms. His recommendations included a new Crown Court Bench Division where some cases would be heard by a judge and two magistrates, and a presumption that lower-level cases with shorter potential sentences would not automatically have a jury. The leaked Lammy memo goes beyond that, pushing toward judge-only hearings for most Crown Court-level cases.
Analysis
The Core Proposal: A Judge-Only Default
Under the emerging plan, jury trials would be reserved for a relatively small group of “top tier” offenses: murder, rape, manslaughter, and a limited set of cases deemed to raise exceptional public interest. Almost everything else that currently goes to the Crown Court could be heard by a single judge in a new Crown Court Bench Division.
Early reporting suggests that cases likely to attract sentences below around five years would default to judge-only trials. That would capture a wide range of serious offenses, from burglary and many assaults to fraud, drug dealing, and some sexual offenses.
Supporters inside government argue that judges are trained professionals, bound by strict rules of evidence and reasoned judgments. They say this model would speed up hearings, reduce the time spent selecting and directing juries, and make it easier to schedule trials. In their view, the right balance is to keep juries for the gravest crimes while modernizing the rest of the system.
Political and Constitutional Dimensions
Politically, the proposal is high-risk. Limiting jury trials touches a nerve that cuts across party lines. Many see the jury system as more than a technical choice; it is a symbol of democratic oversight over state power.
Opposition parties have already attacked the idea as an erosion of fundamental liberty. Some Conservative and Liberal Democrat voices have warned of a “slippery slope,” suggesting that once juries are removed from most cases, it becomes easier to chip away at the remainder. Within the governing party, there are signs of unease among lawyers and civil libertarians who recall that Lammy himself has previously praised juries as a check against racial bias.
Constitutionally, the debate turns on whether jury trial is a legal right or a long-standing convention. The memo’s claim that there is “no right” to a jury trial may be technically accurate in narrow statute terms, but it clashes with the way many judges, lawyers, and citizens understand the spirit of the system. Any legislation that drastically narrows juries is likely to be scrutinized hard in the House of Lords, where former judges and senior lawyers sit in significant numbers.
Justice System Pressures and the Backlog
The government’s central argument is pragmatic: the courts are overwhelmed, victims are suffering, and something dramatic must change. Almost 80,000 Crown Court cases are waiting to be heard. Some victims of sexual violence are waiting years before giving evidence, with inevitable effects on their mental health and the reliability of testimony. Defendants can spend long periods on remand, only to be acquitted after a trial that might have happened much earlier in a better-resourced system.
A judge-only model could shorten trials. There would be no jury selection, no extended jury directions, and less downtime while jurors are kept out of court to discuss legal arguments. Proponents say this could free up courtroom time and reduce adjournments, helping to clear the backlog faster and cut the risk that cases collapse because witnesses lose faith or memories fade.
Critics, including the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, counter that juries are not the bottleneck. They point instead to underfunded buildings, too few judges and lawyers, outdated IT, and the effects of past cuts to legal aid. To them, reorganizing who decides guilt without fixing capacity is treating a constitutional safeguard as a disposable efficiency measure.
Civil Liberties and Public Trust
From a civil liberties perspective, the worry is not just about individual cases but about who gets to decide when the state accuses someone of crime. Juries bring lay experience, diversity, and community judgment into the courtroom. They can reflect skepticism about police conduct, forensic evidence, or official narratives in a way that a professional judge might not.
Legal campaigners argue that removing juries from most cases would concentrate power in a judiciary that is still disproportionately white, male, and privately educated. At a time when policing and criminal justice agencies face criticism over institutional bias and discrimination, shrinking the role of lay participation may look like a step in the wrong direction.
Public confidence is another concern. When high-profile cases end in acquittal before a jury, people may grumble but often accept that “twelve citizens” heard the evidence. A future where a single judge acquits or convicts in most serious cases could fuel suspicion that the system is detached from everyday experience, especially in communities that already distrust authority.
Comparisons and Precedents
Non-jury trials are not unknown in the UK, but they are rare and tightly limited. The law already allows judge-only trials in cases with a serious risk of jury tampering, such as organized crime. Northern Ireland previously had non-jury “Diplock courts” for terrorism cases, now much more narrowly used.
Elsewhere, some European countries rely on professional judges and lay assessors rather than juries, and complex fraud cases in several jurisdictions have been heard by panels of judges. But the proposed shift in England and Wales would go much further by making judge-only trials the default for most serious offenses, not the exception.
That is why many in the legal world describe the idea as a “dramatic” or “extreme” change rather than a routine efficiency tweak.
Why This Matters
The immediate impact would fall on those directly inside the system: victims waiting for closure, defendants facing life-changing accusations, and families on both sides. A faster process could reduce emotional strain, financial costs, and the risk that people lose jobs or housing while they wait.
But the long-term implications reach much farther. Shrinking jury trial reshapes the relationship between citizen and state. It raises questions about how much ordinary people are trusted to weigh evidence and how visible justice remains as a public act.
For politicians, the stakes are double-edged. If the backlog falls and trial times improve, ministers can claim to have rescued a system on the brink. If high-profile miscarriages of justice or controversial acquittals arise from judge-only trials, the criticism will be fierce and personal.
Globally, the debate fits a broader pattern. Many democracies are wrestling with court backlogs, rising caseloads, and pressure to be “tough on crime” while keeping budgets tight. At the same time, concerns about democratic erosion and concentration of power make changes to long-standing checks and balances especially sensitive.
In practical terms, the next flashpoints will be any government consultation, the introduction of a criminal justice reform bill in Parliament, and early test cases if the new model becomes law. How judges, lawyers, and the public respond will shape whether the reform beds in or is rolled back.
Real-World Impact
Consider a mid-level fraud case involving a small business owner accused of falsifying invoices. Under the current system, that case might go to a jury in the Crown Court, where twelve people from different backgrounds listen to weeks of evidence about bank statements, accounting software, and witness testimony. Some jurors may bring practical experience of running a business or dealing with debt, shaping their sense of what seems plausible. Under the proposed system, the same case would be decided by a single judge, working through the evidence alone and delivering a reasoned verdict.
Take a serious assault after a bar fight. Today, a defendant might elect for a jury trial, hoping that a group of peers will weigh conflicting accounts about who started the fight. In a judge-only Crown Court Bench Division, the choice disappears. The defendant faces the court knowing that one person will decide whose story is believed.
For a victim of a sexual offense that falls just below the category reserved for juries, the trade-off will feel even more tangible. Faster trial dates and fewer delays may reduce anxiety and the risk of retraumatization. Yet some victims might feel more reassured knowing that a diverse jury, not a single judge, will assess their testimony and the defense’s challenge.
On the system side, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges will have to adapt quickly. Case preparation may change if lawyers expect more legally technical questioning from a judge rather than lay jurors who need plain explanations. Court buildings may be reconfigured, with fewer jury waiting rooms and more emphasis on judicial capacity. Data on conviction rates, appeal patterns, and case duration will become politically charged indicators of whether the reform is working.
Conclusion
The proposal to limit jury trials in England and Wales to only the most serious crimes forces a fundamental question: how much speed and efficiency is society willing to trade for lay participation in justice? On one side lies a court system buckling under delay, with victims and defendants caught in limbo. On the other lies a constitutional tradition that sees ordinary citizens, not just judges, as the final arbiters of guilt.
If ministers press ahead, Parliament and the legal profession will have to decide where the line should fall. They may accept a narrower role for juries, insist on more modest changes, or reject the idea outright and demand greater investment instead.
What happens next will be revealed in legislative drafts, Lords debates, and the intensity of public reaction. The direction of travel—toward judge-only trials or renewed commitment to juries—will be a telling marker of how the UK balances crisis management with constitutional restraint in the years ahead
