Judge-only trials in England and Wales will not wipe out crown court backlog, report says | UK criminal justice
David Lammy’s plans to introduce judge-only criminal trials in England and Wales would save crown courts less than 2% of time, the Institute for Government (IFG) has said.
The think tank described gains from judge-only trials as “marginal” in a report that cast doubt on the ability of the changes to reduce the number of jury trials to achieve the goal of eliminating court backlogs.
While the number of jury trials has fallen by nearly 50 percent, total time spent in the courtroom is likely to decrease by only 7 to 10 percent as a result of the entire package of changes, with judge-only trials contributing only a small portion of this.
Cassia Rowland, who wrote the report, said: “The government’s proposed reforms to jury trials will not solve the problems at the crown court. “The time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best, accounting for less than 2% of crown court time.
“More cases heard in the magistrates’ courts is a stronger recommendation and would potentially free up more time, but the government has not yet set out specific details of how it will do this and forecasts are extremely uncertain. For a bigger and more immediate impact on crown court backlogs, the government should instead focus on how to improve efficiency in the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology needed to enable courts to operate more efficiently.”
The plans have already faced significant backlash from the legal profession as well as dozens of Labor MPs and upper house colleagues. The report said judge-only hearings would be “highly controversial and could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
Brian Leveson’s government-commissioned review recommended a single judge sit alongside two others in a new “reserve division” of the crown court, but Lammy brushed aside the lay element.
The government said it had conducted its own impact assessment of the changes but would not publish it until the draft law containing the recommendations was ready.
The IFG said the proposals would reduce demand on the crown court in terms of the number of cases and the total time required for cases to be heard, but said these reductions were “not significant” for three reasons. He said too much court time was spent dealing with other types of cases and hearings and, secondly, that cases referred to benches or magistrates would be the least serious cases in the crown court and on average took half as long to be heard as the most serious cases.
Finally, judge-only trials are estimated to be 20% faster than jury trials, but the report says they will make up only a quarter of crown court hearings and have an “extremely marginal” impact.
Rowland said that unlike the planned changes, boosting productivity “has broad support across the industry and could kick in much quicker.” He said the crown court had so far heard almost 20% fewer hours per session in 2025/26 than in 2016/17. “If the crown court heard an equivalent number of cases per day in 2024 as in 2016, the case backlog would decrease by at least a few thousand cases. Instead it would increase by around 8,000 (10%),” the report said.
Mark Evans, chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “If the UK government is serious about tackling the appalling criminal court backlog, the focus should be on the investment and reforms that will make the most difference.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “We disagree with these figures. Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review concluded that reform could reduce trial times by at least 20% in a conservative approach, and judges in Canada have said in practice it has cut trial times by up to half.”
“After years of delays in our courts, victims face an unacceptably long wait for justice. So, as this report says, only a combination of bold reforms, record investment and action to tackle system-wide inefficiencies can deliver victims the speedy justice they deserve.”
