The government has reversed its controversial plans to remove jury trials from most criminal cases in England and Wales, instead opting to retain the right for the vast majority of defendants. Justice Secretary Alex Norris announced the decision, stating that introducing judge-only trials "was always going to be the most complicated to implement" and would have slowed down broader reforms. The reversal marks a significant retreat from proposals developed by former justice secretary David Lammy following a government-commissioned review by former judge Sir Brian Leveson.
The original proposals aimed to tackle a record backlog in the courts by increasing the number of judge-alone trials. However, the strength of opposition from legal professionals, civil rights advocates, and some within the Labour party prompted the change of course. Norris told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that the backlog would start falling "in this Parliament" as a result of the changes being made, though he did not specify by how much.
What changes are still going ahead?
The government has not entirely abandoned judge-only trials. According to the government's factsheet on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, judge-alone trials will remain available for a narrowly defined category of cases: exceptionally lengthy and technically complex fraud or financial matters where the court determines a jury trial is inappropriate. This provision applies only to specified fraud or financial offences and requires an exceptional-complexity-or-length preparatory hearing, while excluding homicide and indictable-only sexual offences.
The government will proceed with other elements of Lammy's original reform package. The right of defendants charged with "either way" offences—those that can be tried in either magistrates' courts or crown courts—to choose a jury trial in the crown court will be removed. Instead, courts will make that determination. Additionally, magistrates' sentencing powers will increase from the current maximum of 12 months to 18 months, with an option to extend to two years.
According to the Criminal Bar Association, the proposal to strip defendants of their right to elect a crown court trial, combined with doubling magistrates' sentencing powers to two years, would shift approximately 25,000 cases a year—including 5,500 jury trials—out of the crown court.
Why did the original plan prove so controversial?
The Leveson review, conducted in 2025, had recommended removing jury trials for defendants likely to receive sentences of up to three years. The review estimated that its proposals could save approximately 9,000 Crown Court sitting days annually, a significant efficiency gain in a system struggling under its caseload.
However, the proposal triggered an unprecedented outcry from legal professionals and civil rights campaigners. Critics, including prominent barristers such as the founding head of Doughty Street Chambers—where Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Lammy, and Attorney General Richard Hermer KC spent parts of their careers—argued that the government was abandoning a centuries-old constitutional right. Some Labour MPs also expressed reservations about the plan. Barrister Karl Turner, a Labour MP who was suspended from the parliamentary party after criticising the government's jury trial reform plans, thanked Burnham "for his support during my campaign."
Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, welcomed the reversal but raised concerns about the remaining measures:
"We underline that it is a dangerous experiment to increase sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect from defendants at a time when prisons are at capacity and the backlog of cases is accelerating in the magistrates courts. We know that women, black people, mixed race people and older people elect jury trials more often than other groups and this proposal risks deepening existing disparities and exacerbating distrust in the justice system from minoritised communities."
Andrew Thomas KC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the profession was "delighted" with the reversal.
"Justice needs juries. Nothing inspires more public trust than 12 ordinary citizens from all walks of life deciding the facts of a case together."However, Thomas warned that plans to keep more middle-ranking cases before magistrates could backfire.
"These are not minor offences. It includes serious and sensitive cases including assaults, sexual assaults, child abuse and grievous bodily harm. Our volunteer magistrates do an excellent job but they are completely unequipped to try complex, multi-day trials. It would be a car crash if they tried to do it, especially at this time."
The Law Society of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association both welcomed the government's decision to abandon the jury trial cuts, though they expressed concern about pushing more cases toward magistrates' courts and called for increased investment in the justice system, particularly in legal aid.
What do victims' advocates say?
Claire Waxman, the victims' commissioner, expressed deep scepticism about whether the revised approach will adequately address the crisis. She stated:
"Victims are entitled to ask whether what remains will be enough to meet the challenge of delivering swifter justice. Indeed, they are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be. The lessons from the prisons crisis should be clear: postponing difficult decisions rarely solves problems. More often, it simply stores them up for the future. Victims need hope. They need to know this is genuine reform that matches the scale of the challenge: reform that will alleviate their prolonged suffering, rather than an easy compromise that delivers only marginal improvements today while leaving both the justice system, and the victims who rely on it, vulnerable tomorrow."
Waxman's comments highlight a fundamental tension in the government's position: by abandoning the jury trial cuts, ministers have rejected a measure they previously argued was necessary to prevent systemic collapse, yet the alternative solutions remain untested and uncertain in their effectiveness.
What is the scale of the court backlog?
Crown courts currently face an almost insurmountable caseload, with nearly 81,000 cases pending. Without intervention, that figure was projected to reach 100,000 before the next general election and, in a worst-case scenario, could climb to double that number by 2035. The backlog has become a defining challenge for the justice system, with Crown Court cases accounting for 65 per cent of hearing hours despite representing only 13 per cent of cases closed in 2024. There are, however, indications the backlog is now stabilising after the government committed unlimited funding to pay for more judges to sit in courts that were otherwise being unused.
What alternative measures are being considered?
The courts minister, Sarah Sackman KC, has indicated that other approaches to tackling the backlog will be pursued. These include using artificial intelligence to assist with case listing, expanding the use of virtual hearings, and implementing measures to ensure defendants arrive at court on time. Norris said he remained committed to "structural reform which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog." While these efficiency improvements may help, they represent incremental rather than transformative change.
What is the political reaction?
The Conservative Party described the reversal as a "major victory" for those who fought to defend trial by jury. Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy said: "This is a major victory for everyone who fought to defend trial by jury, and Conservatives led that fight from day one. Labour have been forced to abandon its central attack on jury trials in the Crown Court." Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fully added the proposal "should never have been introduced in the first place", while Green MP Sian Berry said it was "a victory for justice and fairness."
What happens next?
The Courts and Tribunals Bill is due to return to Parliament later in October 2026, when the government's amendments to drop the proposed Crown Court Bench Division and retain jury trials for most cases are expected to be taken forward. The revised bill will still include the provisions allowing judge-alone trials in specified fraud and financial cases, the removal of defendants' choice in "either way" offences, and the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers.
The government's retreat on jury trials represents a significant political victory for the legal profession and civil liberties advocates, but it leaves unresolved the fundamental question of how to manage a court system that remains under severe strain. With nearly 81,000 cases already pending and no transformative solution in place, the pressure on the justice system is likely to intensify in the months ahead.
