Plans to introduce judge-only criminal trials in England and Wales will save less than 2% of crown court time, according to a report by the Institute for Government (IFG). The thinktank described the gains as “marginal” and cast doubt on the ability of the changes to wipe out the courts’ backlog.
The IFG report said that while the number of jury trials would fall by about 50%, the entire package of changes would likely reduce total courtroom time by only 7 to 10%, with judge-only trials contributing a fraction of that. Cassia Rowland, the report's author, stated: “The time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of crown court time.”
The report noted that the proposals have faced backlash from the legal profession and Labour MPs. It warned that judge-only trials “are likely to be highly controversial and to damage public confidence in the criminal justice system”. The government’s plans, based on a review by Sir Brian Leveson, originally included a lay element, but Justice Secretary David Lammy scrapped it.
The IFG argued that the reductions in demand are not substantial for three reasons: much court time is spent on other cases, trials moved to the bench division or magistrates would be the least serious, and judge-only trials would only account for about a quarter of crown court trials. Instead, the report recommended focusing on productivity improvements, noting that the crown court is hearing almost 20% fewer hours per sitting day than in 2016/17.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson disagreed with the IFG’s figures, citing Sir Brian Leveson’s review that estimated a 20% reduction in case times, and examples from Canada where case time was reduced by up to half. The spokesperson added: “Victims are facing an unacceptably long wait for justice… only a combination of bold reforms, record levels of investment and action to tackle inefficiencies will get victims the swift justice they deserve.”
