Jury trials scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years

Jury trials for crimes punishable by less than three years in England and Wales will be canceled in England and Wales, the justice secretary has announced.

Reforms to the justice system include the establishment of “fast-track courts” as part of the government’s plan to combat unprecedented delays in the court system.

Serious crimes such as murder, robbery and rape will still go before juries, and volunteer community judges, who handle the majority of criminal cases, will take on even more work.

David Lammy said the reforms were “bold” but “necessary”, while the Conservatives described the plans as “the beginning of the end of jury trials”.

Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson was asked by the Lord Chancellor offer a series of suggestions to reduce the backlogIn a process that starts in December 2024.

These suggestions included non-jury trials and more out-of-court solutions such as habeas corpus.

In July, Sir Brian said “fundamental” reforms were needed to “reduce the risk of a complete collapse of the system”.

The previous version of the plan leaked to BBC and The Times’ decision last week, based on Sir Brian’s proposals, was to end jury trials, which carry a prison sentence of up to five years for most offences.

But David Lammy, who announced the reforms in the House of Commons on Tuesday, backed away from the most radical reforms.

Lammy said the new system will resolve cases one-fifth faster than jury trials.

He added that this was necessary as current projections see the Crown Court caseload reaching 100,000 by 2028; the current backlog was almost 78,000.

This means that a suspect accused of a crime today could not be tried until 2030.

It is said that six in 10 rape victims withdraw from investigations due to delays.

Lammy also said the defendant’s right to a jury trial would be restricted to prevent him from “gaming the system.”

Reforms to the jury process will remove the right of defendants to seek a jury trial, where a case could be heard by magistrates or a new crown court made up of judges only.

Defendants facing fraud and complex financial crime charges will no longer face jury trials; This is a suggestion made to the government by a retired senior judge earlier this year.

Approximately 1.3 million cases are brought each year in England and Wales, and 10% of these cases go to the crown court. Three out of 10 of these result in trials.

The reforms appear to mean more than two in 10 people will still face a jury.

Critics of restrictions on trials by jury, including nearly all lawyers, say it would have no impact on the backlog because the real problem lies with the Justice Department.

Evidence also shows that ethnic minorities believe they have a fairer hearing in front of juries rather than just judges.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick accused Lammy of “scrapping the institution he once praised”.

Lammy had previously said reducing jurors would be a mistake, but before the announcement he told the BBC that “the facts have changed” and the government needed to make reforms to address the backlog.

Jenrick told the House of Commons: “Why does this justice secretary think he has the power to dismantle centuries of jury trials without ever mentioning it in his party’s manifesto?”

In response, Lammy said the changes were necessary because the previous government shortened trial days and judges already dealt with the vast majority of cases in the UK.

Abigail Ashford, a solicitor at Stokoe Partnership who represents clients at the crown court, said the reforms put confidence in justice at risk.

“Judge-only trials risk deepening existing inequalities and eroding trust among communities who already feel excluded,” he said.

“In complex or sensitive cases, preventing the community from assessing credibility and fairness undermines trust in a way that cannot be offset by the concentration of decisions in the hands of a single judge.”