Prime Minister Andy Burnham has scrapped a controversial proposal to curb the use of jury trials, reversing a decision taken by Sir Keir Starmer's former administration that aimed to tackle the backlog of cases waiting to reach the crown court. Instead, the Government is aiming to divert less serious cases away from the crown court and into the magistrates court.
New measures for magistrates courts
Magistrates will now be able to sentence people to up to two years in prison, rather than one year as the law stands currently. In addition, defendants appearing in the magistrates court will no longer be able to elect to have a trial before a jury in the crown court.
The Government has been warned that these proposals will mean another 25,000 cases will be dealt with in the magistrates court, where cases are tried either by a paid district judge, or three volunteer magistrates.
Legal sector reaction
The Criminal Bar Association, which represents barristers, claims that volunteer magistrates are 'completely unequipped' to try complex, multi-day trials, and say that there is not enough magistrates to cope with the increased workload. The proposals will be a 'car crash', according to CBA chairman Andrew Thomas KC, and would amount to 'restricting juries by the back door', according to the Conservative shadow justice secretary.
David Lammy, the former justice secretary in Starmer's government, proposed to reserve jury trials for 'indictable-only' offences such as murder and rape, and lesser 'either-way' offences with a likely sentence of more than three years in prison. Other cases would instead have been heard by a single crown court judge. The plan was supported by MPs at the first Commons hurdle earlier this year, but proved controversial within the legal sector.
Backlog figures and government response
Ministry of Justice figures showed there were 80,829 cases still to be dealt with at the end of June, with the backlog almost doubling since 2020. Justice Secretary Alex Norris insisted that scrapping Lammy's proposals would allow the Government to reduce the backlog faster, as it would require less structural change. The changes will be made to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is due back in Parliament later this month.
Mr Norris said: “This Government inherited criminal courts on the brink of collapse, with victims waiting years for their day in court. I remain committed to bringing down the backlog and delivering swifter justice for those who so desperately need it. But I have heard the strength of feeling on the proposals for increasing the number of judge-alone trials in the crown court and have made the decision to change course. This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring that under this Government we do not have victims waiting endlessly for justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment. I remain committed to structural reform which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog.”
Mr Thomas, chairman of the CBA, said: “We are delighted that Andy Burnham’s Government has scrapped plans for judge-only trials. Justice needs juries. Nothing inspires more public trust than 12 ordinary citizens from all walks of life deciding the facts of a case together. Yet, a severe threat to our trial by jury remains in the Bill. The proposal to strip defendants of their right to elect a Crown Court trial, combined with doubling Magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years, would shift 25,000 cases a year, including 5,500 jury trials, out of the Crown Court. These are not minor offences. It includes serious and sensitive cases including assaults, sexual assaults, child abuse and GBH. Our volunteer magistrates do an excellent job but they are completely unequipped to try complex, multi-day trials. What makes it worse is that it is far more difficult to get Legal Aid in the Magistrates’ Courts, and people facing long sentences of imprisonment will end up representing themselves. The Magistrates’ Courts simply cannot cope. Since this proposal was first announced, the Crown Court backlog has stabilised but the backlog of open court case in the Magistrates’ Courts has surged by 16 per cent annually—and up to 40 per cent in some regions. They do not have enough Magistrates, enough qualified legal advisers or enough resources to take on thousands of more sensitive cases. It would be a car crash if they tried to do it, especially at this time.”
Further criticism and recruitment concerns
Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy described the proposals as 'restricting juries by the back door, scrapping the right to elect one and dumping those cases on magistrates whose backlog is at a record high'.
The Government is running a magistrates recruitment drive, but a Justice Committee report in June said it was “unrealistic” to propose 7,000 magistrates can be recruited in three years to reach a target of 21,000 by 2029, adding that previous recruitment campaigns have “fallen far short”.
Catherine Feast, chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association said she hoped magistrates can 'rise to this new challenge'. "Magistrates already handle around 95 per cent of criminal cases, and proved their ability to take on greater sentencing responsibility in 2024, when their powers were smoothly extended from six months to 12 months," she said. “Provided there is appropriate magistrate training and resourcing to support this further extension – including having sufficient legal advisers and courts properly equipped and fit for purpose – magistrates can rise to this new challenge.”
Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales said: “Too much time has been wasted to reach this common-sense position while the backlogs in the Crown and magistrates’ courts have remained unacceptably high. Investment in infrastructure and technology is encouraging but this must be new money coming into the criminal justice system. We remain concerned that putting more cases into the magistrates’ court, which also faces record backlogs, without increasing capacity places even greater strain on an already overburdened system and risks serious cases facing summary justice.”
Claire Waxman, Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, said victims 'are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be (enough)'.
