The government's controversial proposals to limit jury trials in England and Wales, spearheaded by Justice Secretary David Lammy, are facing a potentially insurmountable hurdle: a severe shortage of magistrates. Critics argue that plans to create new 'swift courts' and extend magistrates' sentencing powers are unworkable without a dramatic and unlikely influx of new volunteers to the bench.
The Recruitment Crisis Undermining Reform
Central to the proposed reforms is the idea of magistrates sitting alongside a judge in a new hybrid court model. However, this immediately raises a critical question: where will these additional magistrates come from? The magistracy, described as the linchpin of the criminal justice system, is already stretched thin.
Recent recruitment drives have fallen drastically short. A £1 million campaign launched in January 2022 aimed to recruit 4,000 new magistrates. By April 2024, only 2,008 had been appointed. The success rate for applicants in the year ending March 2025 was a mere 22%, highlighting the stringent criteria and significant commitment required.
Retired barrister Janet Carter points out a further strain: a separate proposal to extend magistrates' sentencing powers to 18 months and remove jury trial rights for corresponding offences. With 47% of crown court custodial sentences last year (23,059 cases) being for 18 months or less, this would represent a massive transfer of workload to already overburdened magistrates' courts.
Canadian Comparisons and Systemic Issues
The government has pointed to Canada's judge-only trial system as a model. However, legal experts have challenged this comparison. Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council, notes that Canada also has strict time limits for cases, and its reduction in backlogs cannot be solely attributed to judge-only trials. She also highlights a contradiction in Lammy's position, referencing his own previous finding in the Lammy Review that juries are a 'success story' for not delivering racially biased verdicts.
Barrister Paul Keleher KC goes further, arguing that Lammy has fundamentally misunderstood the Canadian system. In Canada, defendants retain an absolute right to a jury trial, unlike the proposed erosion of that right in England and Wales. Keleher also notes that Canada abolished its own lay magistrates in the 1980s over reliability concerns—the very cohort Lammy wishes to empower.
Pragmatic Solutions and the Defence of Jury Trial
Faced with the recruitment impasse, Janet Carter proposes a pragmatic, if radical, solution: creating a 'trial only' panel within the magistracy. This would involve faster recruitment, shorter training, and more flexible sitting requirements for new members, who would sit alongside a fully trained presiding justice, with a right of appeal. This, she argues, could attract a wider cross-section of the community.
Opponents of the reforms, however, believe resources are being misdirected. They point to more immediate, solvable problems: on 13 January, 11% of courtrooms in England and Wales (58 out of 516) stood vacant. Chronic issues with the Prisoner Escort and Custody Services, late arrivals, and a shortage of barristers due to unresolved legal aid funding further cripple the system.
The Bar Council maintains that focusing on abolishing jury trials for roughly 2% of cases, and setting up an entirely new court structure, drains energy and resources from fixing these fundamental operational failures. They stand firm in protecting the jury trial as a cornerstone of the legal history and culture of England and Wales from what they see as unnecessary erosion.
