Justice Secretary David Lammy has proposed confining jury trials to extreme crimes such as rape, manslaughter and murder, with all other cases defaulting to a single judge. The move is intended to tackle a severe backlog in England and Wales, where nearly 80,000 cases are pending and some hearings have been postponed until 2029. The surge in rape cases has led to two-year delays, and the number of complainants withdrawing has doubled compared to five years ago.
The prison population is approaching 100,000, with a fifth of cells occupied by remand prisoners awaiting trial. This situation has been described as a “parody of justice” by critics. Former judge Brian Leveson’s review earlier this year warned of a “total system collapse” and proposed that most trials go before a judge with two magistrates in attendance.
Almost no other European country uses juries except in exceptional cases; most rely on judges and examining magistrates. England and Wales imprison 145 people per 100,000, compared to 71 in Germany, 54 in the Netherlands, and 54 in Norway. The jury-loving United States imprisons 541 per 100,000. Juries have already been abandoned for civil and financial trials in Britain.
Opposition to the proposal has come from barristers, who depend on juries for their livelihood, and some criminals who perceive juries as more lenient. However, the vast majority of criminal cases are already conducted without juries in magistrates courts, and only one in five crown court cases are decided by juries. Supporters argue that the system is antiquated and inefficient, with jury trials often taking far longer than necessary.
Lammy’s plan is seen as a necessary reform to prevent the collapse of the justice system. Critics fear it could undermine the principle of justice being seen to be done, but proponents point to the success of jury-free systems in other European countries and the need to reduce prison overcrowding and delays.
