The government has reversed controversial proposals to expand judge-alone trials across England and Wales, following significant public and legal opposition. These plans aimed to reduce the backlog in criminal courts by replacing many jury trials with a single judge.
The move has been largely praised by lawyers. Nevertheless, the Victims’ Commissioner voiced apprehension about the abandoned measures. These proposals, put forward by the previous justice secretary, David Lammy, under a former administration, sought to expedite justice.
Currently, almost 81,000 cases await resolution in crown courts. Projections suggested this number could reach 100,000 without the now-scrapped reforms. Consequently, victims and defendants often endure years of waiting.
Justice Secretary Alex Norris addressed the decision. “This government inherited criminal courts on the brink of collapse,” he stated. “Victims were waiting years for their day in court.”
Mr. Norris affirmed his commitment to tackling the backlog. He also stressed the importance of delivering swifter justice. Furthermore, he acknowledged the strong opposition to increasing judge-alone trials.
“I have made the decision to change course,” Mr. Norris explained. “This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring victims do not wait endlessly for justice.” He also added, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Lammy’s original proposals stemmed from a government-commissioned review. Former judge Sir Brian Leveson had recommended stripping thousands of defendants of their right to jury trials. This was an attempt to prevent the criminal justice system from collapsing.
Critics, including Geoffrey Robertson, a distinguished legal figure, strongly opposed the measures. They argued the previous Labour government was abandoning a centuries-old right. Moreover, they claimed it would not significantly reduce the backlog.
The abandoned legislation would have removed jury trials for defendants facing potential sentences of up to three years. However, ministers have not completely abandoned judge-only trials.
These will now be reserved for a small number of extremely lengthy and complex fraud cases. Here, a judge will determine if a jury trial is inappropriate. Additionally, Lammy’s plans to remove defendants’ choice for ‘either way’ offences remain in place. Magistrates will now decide whether these cases go to a crown court or magistrates’ court.
The planned increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers will also proceed. Their maximum sentencing ability will rise from 12 months to 18 months, with an option to extend to two years.
Kirsty Brimelow, Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, welcomed the government’s swift action. However, she expressed serious concerns. “It is a dangerous experiment to increase sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect from defendants,” she warned.
She highlighted that prisons are at capacity. Meanwhile, case backlogs are accelerating in magistrates’ courts. Ms. Brimelow also noted that women, black people, mixed-race people, and older people often prefer jury trials. This proposal, she suggested, risks deepening existing disparities and eroding trust among minority communities.
The Law Society of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association also welcomed the U-turn. Yet, they expressed unease about shifting more cases to magistrates. The Law Society also called for increased investment, particularly in legal aid.
Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman questioned the remaining measures. “Victims are entitled to ask whether what remains will be enough,” she stated. “They are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be.”
Ms. Waxman urged genuine reform to match the scale of the challenge. She warned against an “easy compromise” that might leave the justice system, and victims, vulnerable. Courts Minister Sarah Sackman KC outlined other steps. These include using AI for case listing, more virtual hearings, and ensuring defendants arrive in court punctually.
