The UK government has announced significant reforms to its criminal justice system, proposing to eliminate jury trials for many crimes as a response to a mounting backlog of cases. Justice Secretary David Lammy revealed the plans earlier this month, highlighting the urgent need for a more efficient legal process. The proposed changes would establish a new tier of jury-free courts to handle cases with potential sentences of up to three years, encompassing offenses such as fraud, robbery, and various drug-related crimes.
Under the new system, serious charges including sexual assault, murder, and human trafficking would still be tried by jury, maintaining some level of the traditional judicial process. This reform does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, where separate legal systems are in place. Less severe offenses, already processed without juries, will also remain unchanged.
With nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently pending in the Crown Courts, a figure projected to rise to 100,000 by 2028, the backlog poses significant challenges for the UK’s justice system. Among these are over 13,000 sexual offense cases, leaving many victims waiting years for their day in court. A report from the Victims’ Commissioner highlights the distressing reality of delayed justice, with some individuals waiting up to four years for trials.
One victim, who endured an assault that resulted in psychological trauma, reported that the backlog prevented the Crown Prosecution Service from pursuing his case despite clear evidence, including an admission from the assailant. Another victim of stalking described living in fear while awaiting the delayed trial of her alleged attacker, stating, “It had been three years of terror for me to live through.”
Advocates for the reforms, including Sarah Sackman, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, argue that the changes are necessary to address the overwhelming wait times for victims. She stated in the House of Commons, “justice delayed is justice denied,” emphasizing the need for a more responsive system.
Concerns Over Fairness and Historical Rights
Despite the government’s push for reform, significant opposition has emerged. Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Minister and Conservative MP, condemned the proposal as a “disgrace” that undermines an “ancient right” to a jury trial, a right dating back to the Magna Carta of the 13th century. This historical context reinforces the perception of jury trials as a cornerstone of the UK’s legal tradition.
A YouGov poll in November 2025 indicated that 54% of the public would prefer a jury to decide their fate if accused of a crime. Helena Kennedy KC, a prominent Labour member of the House of Lords, expressed concerns that limiting jury trials reflects a belief among some politicians that the public cannot adequately fulfill this responsibility. She underscored the jury’s role as a vital democratic function and criticized the funding shortfalls that have led to the current system’s failures.
The Bar Council’s Young Barristers’ Committee Chair, Lachlan Stewart, attributed the court backlog to delays exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, stating, “You have this system that didn’t really have any slack in it.” He highlighted the importance of maintaining jury trials to ensure a diverse range of life experiences in the courtroom, which can help mitigate biases.
Calls for Alternative Solutions
While some argue for a more limited approach to jury trials, others advocate for more comprehensive reforms. Charities focused on sexual assault, such as Rape Crisis England & Wales (RCEW), have long highlighted systemic flaws that need urgent attention. They propose exploring juryless trials for sexual offenses, aiming to alleviate the trauma experienced by victims during prolonged court processes.
A report released by RCEW, titled “Living in Limbo,” reveals that survivors of sexual offenses often encounter lengthy wait times and repeated trial delays, leading many to withdraw from the legal process entirely. One victim shared her experience of dropping her case due to the stress and prolonged wait, stating, “It ruined my life.”
As the UK government prepares to implement these reforms, the effectiveness of the new jury-free courts remains to be seen. Critics, including Stewart, caution that there is no definitive evidence that the proposed changes will lead to a more efficient system or reduce waiting times for victims of serious crimes. The debate continues over how best to balance the need for timely justice with the preservation of fundamental legal rights.