Plans to limit jury trials in England and Wales may be watered down after backlash, but a major obstacle remains: where will the additional magistrates come from? The magistracy is already stretched, with recruitment proving difficult. A £1m campaign in January 2022 aimed to recruit 4,000 new magistrates, but by April 2024 only 2,008 had been appointed. The success rate of applicants in the year ending March 2025 was just 22%.
Another proposal to extend magistrates' sentencing powers up to 18 months and remove the right to jury trial for those offences would massively increase workload. Last year, 47% of custodial sentences (23,059 cases) imposed in the crown court were for 18 months or less. Even if this proposal alone goes forward, a gargantuan increase in magistrates is needed.
Janet Carter, a retired barrister, suggests creating a 'trial only' panel within the magistracy with faster recruitment, shorter training, and more flexible sitting requirements, alongside a fully trained presiding justice and a right of appeal. This could enable a wider cross-section of the community to apply.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the Bar Council, notes that the government's focus on Canadian-style reforms is misguided. Canada also has time limits for cases, and its backlog reduction was not solely due to judge-only trials. She warns that a panel of a judge and two magistrates would not provide the jury group participation that safeguards against disproportionate verdicts on minority communities.
Paul Keleher KC argues that the proposed reforms are nothing like the Canadian system, where defendants have an absolute right to trial by jury. Canada abolished lay magistrates in the 1980s due to unreliability. He questions whether David Lammy misunderstood the Canadian system or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
