Judge-Only Trials Offer 'Marginal Gains' Against Crown Court Backlog
The Institute for Government has delivered a stark assessment of Labour's proposed criminal justice reforms, revealing that plans to introduce judge-only trials in England and Wales would produce minimal impact on the crown court backlog.
Less Than 2% Time Savings Predicted
According to the thinktank's detailed analysis, David Lammy's proposals to slash jury trials would save less than 2% of total crown court time. While the number of jury trials would fall by approximately 50%, the overall reduction in courtroom time would only amount to 7-10% from the entire package of changes, with judge-only trials contributing just a fraction of that reduction.
Cassia Rowland, the report's author, stated: "The government's proposed reforms to jury trials will not fix the problems in the crown court. The time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of crown court time."
Multiple Factors Limit Effectiveness
The IFG identified three primary reasons why the proposed changes would have limited impact:
- Significant court time is dedicated to handling other types of cases and hearings beyond trials
- Cases moving to bench divisions or magistrates' courts would be the least serious crown court cases, which typically take half as long as more serious matters
- While judge-only trials might be 20% quicker than jury trials, they would only represent about a quarter of crown court trials
The report emphasised that judge-only trials "are likely to be highly controversial and to damage public confidence in the criminal justice system."
Alternative Approaches Recommended
Rowland suggested that hearing more trials in magistrates' courts represents a stronger proposal that could potentially save more time, though she noted the government has yet to provide specific implementation details.
"For a bigger and faster impact on the crown court backlog, the government should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the courts to operate more efficiently," she advised.
The report highlighted that the crown court is currently hearing almost 20% fewer hours per sitting day in 2025/26 compared to 2016/17 levels. It noted that if productivity had remained at 2016 levels, the backlog would have decreased by several thousand cases rather than growing by nearly 8,000 (10%).
Legal Profession and Political Opposition
The proposals have already faced significant opposition from the legal profession, along with dozens of Labour MPs and peers across the upper chamber.
Mark Evans, President of the Law Society of England and Wales, commented: "If the UK government is serious about tackling the appalling backlogs in the criminal courts, its focus must be on the investment and reforms that will make the most difference."
Government Response and International Comparisons
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson disputed the IFG's figures, stating: "We disagree with these numbers. Sir Brian Leveson's independent review concluded reform could, conservatively, reduce case times by at least 20% and judges in Canada have said in practice it reduced case time by up to half."
The spokesperson added: "Victims are facing an unacceptably long wait for justice after years of delays in our courts. That's why – as this report says – only a combination of bold reforms, record levels of investment and action to tackle inefficiencies across the system will get victims the swift justice they deserve."
The government confirmed it has conducted its own impact assessment but will not publish it until the relevant legislation is ready for parliamentary consideration.
