Justice Secretary David Lammy is facing fierce criticism over proposals that would constitute the most sweeping change to criminal justice in modern British history. His plan would effectively halve the number of jury trials in England and Wales, stripping away a right described as an ancient pillar of the legal system.
The Core of the Controversial Reforms
Currently, defendants charged with "either-way" offences – which can range from theft and certain sexual offences to violence and narcotics crimes – have the right to choose trial by jury. Under Mr Lammy's proposals, this right would be removed for any case where the likely sentence is less than three years. These cases would become judge-only affairs.
Only the gravest crimes, such as murder and rape, would retain the right to a trial by one's peers. The justice secretary argues the move is necessary to tackle a crown court backlog of 78,000 cases, with some trials listed into the next decade. He believes magistrates' courts can take on the increased workload.
A Departure from Expert Advice
Opponents, including senior legal figures, point out that Mr Lammy's plans go far beyond the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson's review, which the minister cites as inspiration. Sir Brian did not recommend a blanket scrapping of the defendant's right to opt for a jury. He did not propose using speculative sentence predictions to determine the mode of trial, nor did he call for removing lay participation from "either-way" trials entirely.
Instead, Sir Brian proposed that for most such offences, a judge would sit with two magistrates – a model retaining lay involvement for fairness while potentially speeding up proceedings. It is precisely this protection of lay involvement that Mr Lammy now seeks to remove. The former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas, has called this removal of ordinary citizens from the process "the most controversial and serious aspect of the reforms proposed".
Addressing the Real Causes of Delay
Critics argue the justice secretary is targeting the wrong problem. Jury trials account for less than 3% of all criminal cases and are not the primary cause of systemic clogging. The real issues are rooted in a decade of cuts and underinvestment:
- Court closures and unreplaced staff and judges.
- A collapse in digital forensics capacity.
- Gutted legal aid, driving barristers from the profession.
- A Crown Prosecution Service starved of resources.
Magistrates' courts, which Mr Lammy hopes will absorb the work, already face a staggering 361,000 pending cases. A serious rebuilding plan, critics contend, would involve reopening courts, recruiting judges, and restoring funding to legal aid and the CPS.
Mr Lammy's current trajectory is for fewer juries, more magistrates, and longer sentences, despite prisons already being overcrowded and the Ministry of Justice's day-to-day spending being 14% lower in real terms than in 2008.
There is a profound fear that this move, presented as managerial efficiency for a broken system, sets a dangerous precedent. Removing jury trials for offences under three years could open the door to raising that limit to five. In surrendering to this logic, the Labour Party – founded to expand democratic participation – risks destroying one of its oldest privileges and forfeiting its own moral inheritance.
