Lord Chancellor David Lammy has unveiled a major overhaul of the criminal courts in England and Wales, stepping back from more radical proposals that threatened the fundamental right to trial by jury. The reforms, announced on Tuesday 2 December 2025, centre on the creation of new 'swift courts' designed to tackle a crippling backlog that is delaying justice for thousands.
The Swift Courts Solution
Facing intense 'cabinet feedback' and public concern, Mr Lammy's final plan represents a significant U-turn. Instead of widespread jury trial abolition, the new system will see a single judge deliver verdicts in thousands of 'either way' cases, including assault, burglary, and drug dealing offences. This move directly addresses the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, where victims, such as those of rape, can face waits of four or five years for their case to be heard.
The government argues that modernisation is urgently needed. The courts have relied heavily on outdated paper systems, which are prone to error, costly, and inefficient. The new swift courts aim to provide a middle tier, fitting between magistrates' and crown courts, as originally recommended in the review by the highly distinguished judge, Sir Brian Leveson.
Preserving a 800-Year-Old Right
Despite the operational changes, the government has been forced to defend the enduring role of the jury. The editorial stresses that Britain cannot sink so low as to casually remove a human right enjoyed for 800 years, a right not even heavily restricted in wartime. The only major UK exception was in Northern Ireland during the Troubles for terrorism offences.
Mr Lammy must now reassure the public and parliament that jury trial as a democratic backstop is not ending. The right of a jury to acquit a defendant according to its conscience remains a vital safeguard. Recent cases, such as jurors refusing to convict Palestine Action activists or climate protesters who vandalised a JP Morgan office, demonstrate this principle in action. In sensitive cases involving protest, human rights, or terror, a jury trial is essential to avoid accusations of political bias and uphold judicial independence.
Balancing Speed with Fundamental Liberties
The reform acknowledges that jury trials were never sensible for the most trivial offences, and that complex fraud cases may be better handled by a judge alone. However, the editorial raises concerns about Mr Lammy's judgment, noting he rejected adding a 'sunset clause' to make the new restrictions temporary, instead calling them permanent.
This could prove a mistake if cross-party opposition grows. The strong view is that the current situation must be treated as abnormal. When the backlog is cleared, the general presumption of a basic right to trial by jury must be restored. For serious, sensitive, or politically-charged cases, juries remain an essential check on state power and a compromised judiciary—a safeguard needed for at least another 800 years.
