GMLC campaign volunteer Tammy Ho writes on controversial plans to scrap jury trials for many criminal offences, asking: are court backlogs the real reason for the government’s proposals? And what are the consequences for justice?
After much public debate, in July 2026, the Courts and Tribunals Bill (the Bill) passed its second reading in the House of Commons. Whilst the Bill includes wider changes concerning the criminal and family courts, it was introduced following the proposal by David Lammy in December 2025 to scrap jury trials for all either-way offences in the name of curbing the court backlog. An ‘either-way’ offence is a crime where the accused can choose whether they want the case heard in the Magistrates’ Court (where the judge decides whether or not they are guilty) or the Crown Court (where a jury decides whether or not they are guilty).
Shortly after the second reading of the Bill, new Prime Minister Andy Burnham came into office. He claimed he had “concerns” over the plans to scrap some jury trials, and committed to look at the plans in detail. This is an opportunity for the government to re-consider the Bill.
Before examining the proposed amendments made to contain the sweeping power of the Bill, one must consider the question — how fundamental are jury trials to the rule of law in Britain, and can they be compromised for efficiency?
Fundamental Right to Jury Trials and the Beginning of Either Way Offences
The right to jury trial is a fundamental right in the UK, clearly identified from as early as the Magna Carta in 1215.
Historically, Magistrates’ Courts conduct judge-only trials without a jury with very limited jurisdiction. This simplifies the administration of cases, as no jury needs to be organised by the court. Parliamentary debates in 1855 expressed concerns that delays resulting from the need for jury trials were bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. This led to the creation and compromise of ‘either-way offences’ under the Criminal Justice Act 1855, enabling defendants accused of certain ‘indictable’ offences (which used to be tried by juries) to consent to judge-only trials by magistrates. The key here is consent.
In the 1855 debate, the jurist and future Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbell expressed:
He was glad also that the noble and learned Lord had given the option of trial by jury; for had he not done so he must have opposed the Bill as unconstitutional.
The right for defendants charged with either-way offences (such as theft, standard burglary, and simple possession of a controlled drug) to choose to be tried in the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court remains today — but the government in 2025 proposed to remove this right.
Under the Bill, the decision of whether the case will be heard before a jury will be made by a Crown Court judge assessing whether the offence to be tried is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. If yes, the case will be heard by only one judge without the safeguard of a jury.
Previous Attempts by the Government to Remove Jury Trials
There have long been attacks on maintaining jury trials prior to this Bill.
For example, Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, had already mooted the idea of scrapping a defendant’s right to elect jury trial for either-way offences as Home Secretary under Tony Blair.
Some arguments put forward that juries are flawed because a jury does not detail their reasoning for reaching a verdict, or confirm if they could not understand complex cases: what happens in a jury room is strictly confidential.
In support of this Bill, Lammy put heavy reliance on the independent review done by Sir Brian Leveson and the need to expedite justice for rape victims.
These two pillars are not compelling support for the Bill.
Firstly, while reiterating the credibility of the Leveson review, which advocated for trials by one judge and two magistrates, the government departed from the review and pushed for trials by one judge only.
Secondly, both David Lammy and Minister for Courts and Legal Services Sarah Sackman have stated that the reduction of jury trials would be pursued irrespective of there being a backlog of cases. This suggests delays for rape victims are not their primary concern.
This begs the question of whether the backlog is the cause of this Bill, or if it is merely the occasion for it.
“In this debate, experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection, for what this bill actually is.”
– MP and rape survivor Charlotte Nichols
Presumption of Innocence
Sackman said in a Commons debate in January that she needed a system “in which [c]ourts, not criminals, triage cases”.
Defendants in criminal cases are not criminals until they are found guilty in courts. The courts triage cases rather than the defendants, for summary and indictable offences. Defendants who would have been entitled to jury trials currently retain a choice to opt for a summary trial. That had already been a compromise for efficiency. Those who do not opt out maintain their entitlement to a trial by their peers – a jury.
To describe defendants as criminals and complainants as victims is to disregard the foundational principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
Jury Trials Can Safeguard Fairness
Abrar Javid, one of the Rotherham 12 acquitted of violent disorder in 2016, had expected the worst from an all-white jury given the association of his community with high-profile grooming cases — yet the jury listened carefully across six weeks and returned not guilty verdicts for all defendants. One should not underestimate the capacity of juries to set aside prejudice when given the opportunity.
Speaking as a former juror, Adam, who served on a serious sexual abuse trial, observed that the diverse backgrounds within the jury was itself a safeguard. Even when some jurors entered the jury room with preconceived ideas on the first day, the whole panel with differing life experiences checked one another and produced a fair outcome.
Proposed Amendments as the Alternative Safeguard
An amendment has been put forward by Jess Brown-Fuller on 10 Jun 2026 for the trial allocation reforms to first go through a pilot scheme. This would require the government to pilot the removal of the right to elect jury trials before any wider national implementation is introduced. A sunset clause requiring a report on the effectiveness of the relevant provisions has been introduced by Brown-Fuller alongside the amendment.
This report would evaluate whether the government’s goal would actually be achieved via the removal of jury trials, and to bring things back to normal if it does not.
Brown-Fuller has also proposed an amendment to ensure this Bill does not apply retrospectively. This would no doubt limit the immediate impact of the Bill on the court backlog. However, if the government intends to pursue the removal of jury trials regardless of any backlog, that should not be the decisive objection. A non-retrospective application ensures that current defendants awaiting trials are not caught off guard by a change they could not have anticipated. Legitimate expectations of the defendants would be preserved in an area where it is most needed: when people’s liberty is concerned.
The proposed amendments are due to be debated and voted in the Report Stage soon. The date has yet to be announced as of the time of writing.
When considering the amendments, the MPs must have in mind that the government’s obligation is to ensure an effective court system – one that is fair and efficient. But recent reforms to public services have increasingly been framed in terms of efficiency and productivity. In the criminal courts, however, it is human lives and liberty that are at stake.
Justice must be meaningfully delivered. If the removal of jury trials is driven primarily by resource efficiency but sacrifices genuine protection of defendants’ rights, it is, as Lord Campbell warned in 1855, unconstitutional.
If you’re interested in GMLC’s campaigning work or our work to enforce and expand the rights of people in our community, sign up for our fortnightly newsletter here. Photo credit: Patrick Feller, Flickr, 2017.
