The government has today announced welcome plans to increase funding in the criminal courts, remove the cap on sitting days for Crown Court Judges and invest in court infrastructure.

Alongside criminal legal practitioners, we have long urged the Government to take these essential steps to address the growing court backlog.  

Yet, despite taking steps that will meaningfully reduce the court backlog, the Government is simultaneously pressing ahead with its plan to curtail one of the most longstanding constitutional safeguards in our justice system, replacing juries with judge-only trials for cases with a likely sentence of three years or less heard by a judge alone.  

JUSTICE strongly opposes the plan to cut jury trials  

We urge the government to withdraw the plan to cut jury trials. We have been pushing back against the proposals since they were first announced and have provided all MPs with a detailed briefing setting out the following concerns and the profound risks the reforms pose:

The constitutional importance of jury trials:

• Jury trials sit at the very heart of our democracy. For centuries, juries have protected the simple but powerful idea that we should be judged by our peers and not by a single class or authority alone.  

• The public believes in juries. Time and again, polling demonstrates that juries are one of the most trusted parts of the justice system, a rare point of confidence in a system where trust is seen to be steadily eroding.  

• Shared civic responsibility. Jury service is one of the few times in which the public can take part in justice. Victims and defendants alike benefit from a system where ordinary people listen, weigh evidence, and deliberate with care.

• Without juries we risk an increase in miscarriages of justice. Juries ensure that prosecutions are tested rigorously by 12 members of the public.  

• Juries protect judicial independence and protect judges from undue opprobrium. Without juries, judges will be exposed to public backlash in high profile or sensitive cases.

There is no evidence that curtailing jury trials will reduce the backlog:

• There is no empirical proof or pilot that demonstrates curtailing jury trials will make a material difference in reducing the backlog. Using the Government’s own figures, the Institute for Government’s analysis predicts only 1.5-2.5% of crown court time will be saved through judge-only trials.

• Any ‘time savings’ do not reflect reality. The proposals fail to recognise the practical demands or judge-only trials, including judges having to write full reasoned judgments in every case.

• Strong opposition from legal professionals. Senior lawyers have warned that these proposals are “an irremediable error.”  

Backlogs are not caused by juries and will not be fixed by curtailing jury trials:

• Most delays happen long before a jury enters the room. From last-minute adjournments, poor case management, over-listing, to missing witnesses or barristers, to defendants not being brought to court on time, to crumbling court buildings and interpreter shortages.  

• Practical solutions already exist. Recommendations from the Independent Review of Criminal Courts show how to cut delays without curtailing jury trials. The government’s announcement today demonstrates that it has the tools to tackle the backlog without restricting jury trials.

The reforms risk further failing victims and marginalised communities:

• Victims deserve timely justice, not experiments which risk fairness. Juries provide protections that judge-only trials cannot.  

• Victims need investment in prevention and early intervention, not rushed structural change. The Government’s proposals do nothing to address the victims sector’s ask to tackle the drivers of harm against women and girls and to strengthen systems to actively reduce gender-based violence and protect survivors.  

• Juries are inherently more diverse than a judge. A single judge cannot match the diversity of 12 randomly selected citizens, risking unconscious bias feeding into decision making.

• Undermining trust and confidence. Public trust is already fragile among ethnic minority communities; jury decision making is the one place in the system where racial disproportionality does not show up.

Evidence-based ways to cut the court backlog already exist:

• Across England and Wales there is clear evidence that jury trials do not need to be curtailed to tackle the backlog. Examples from Liverpool Crown Court and Crown Courts in Wales show that targeted investment, effective case management, operational innovation, and functional buildings lead to measurable improvements in performance, not the removal of juries.  

• Experience from other jurisdictions reinforce this. In Scotland, proposals to limit jury trials for serious sexual offences were abandoned after overwhelming opposition from judges, lawyers and professional bodies. Meanwhile, the Government’s comparisons with Canada are misleading with jury rights operating very differently from the model the Government presents.

Read our full briefing here.