Jury trials to be scrapped in some cases in bid to tackle court backlog
Jury trials in some cases will be scrapped and so-called “swift courts” set up in England and Wales, the Justice Secretary has announced.
Currently jury trials make up 3% of cases but this will be curbed further as David Lammy confirmed they would be reserved 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.
Mr Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, told MPs reforms were “desperately needed”.
The suggestion to scrap more jury trials has already faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals concerned over fairness, curtailing rights, and a lack of evidence the move will even help bring down the backlog.
The crown court backlog currently is at a record level of more than 78,000 cases and some trials are being listed as far in the future as 2030.
Currently defendants of either way offences can have their cases heard in the magistrates’ court or crown court, where they can elect a jury trial.
But under plans announced on Tuesday, defendants will no longer be able to choose this option.
Justice Secretary David Lammy stressed that juries remain “fundamental” as he is expected to set out plans to curb their use in a bid to tackle the backlog in the courts.
Mr Lammy, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, will lay out reforms to overhaul the system on Tuesday, amid reports jury trials could be limited to the most serious offences such as rape and murder.
The Bar Council has urged him not to replace juries with single judges, warning that doing so could damage public trust.
Mr Lammy signalled he could expand magistrates’ powers for them to take on more serious cases and questioned whether defendants in “either way” cases should be able to choose to have a jury trial, in a media round ahead of his announcement to Parliament.
He told BBC Breakfast: “So, should we be asking our magistrates to deal with more cases? That’s one of the questions that I’m looking at, and I’ll be answering this afternoon.
“And then there’s a group of cases where you can get up to five years.
“Generally speaking, they’re called triable either-way cases, and also where a defendant can opt to have a jury, and I’m looking at that.
“What I mean by that is, if you steal an iPhone this afternoon from Currys, should you be able to opt to have a jury?
“The trial may take two days, and inevitably, that will cause further delay for more serious and egregious crimes like rape or murder.
“So that’s the question that I’ve been looking at and that’s what I’ll be announcing later on today.
“I want to be absolutely clear, juries remain fundamental to our system.”
The Justice Secretary wants to give victims the “swift justice they deserve” amid a record-high backlog of crown court cases totalling more than 78,000, and trials listed as far as 2030.
Ministers have warned the backlog could rise to 100,000 by 2028 if nothing is done, with a growing number of victims giving up on seeking justice because of the lengthy delays.
Mr Lammy will set out the Government’s response to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in July.
Those include diverting more offences to magistrates’ courts or to a new intermediate court where a judge would hear cases with two lay magistrates.
Sir Brian also called for jury trials to be reserved for the most serious “indictable-only” cases such as murder, rape and manslaughter, and only lesser “either way” offences when a judge deems it appropriate.
And he said judge-only trials could be used in serious and complex fraud cases, or other complex cases determined by a judge.
Mr Lammy suggested in an interview with the Times that he would back Sir Brian’s proposals to limit jury trials to indictable-only offences, arguing that many defendants were “playing the system” by delaying guilty pleas in either-way cases to the last minute.
Proposals to curb jury trials have faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals, including from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council.
Bar Council chairwoman Barbara Mills said on Tuesday: “We have continuously opposed proposals to curtail jury trials because there is no evidence that their removal would reduce the backlog, nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced.
“Replacing juries with a judge alone is not the answer – according to the Institute for Government, few European countries allow lengthy sentences to be passed down by a single judge.
“And as the Lord Chancellor’s own report in 2017 confirmed, juries enjoy public trust in part because they deliver equitable findings – regardless of ethnicity.
“We urge the government to reconsider pursuing radical changes under the mistaken belief that radical equals effective.”
Riel Karmy-Jones, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “The Government talks about its commitment to protect its citizens from harm, violence and sexual offences, but is eviscerating that protection by eroding the public’s right to trial by jury.
“It is not juries that cause delays. Rather, it is all the consequences of the years of underfunding that look set to continue: the artificial cap on sitting days, the crumbling courts, the inadequate technology, the failure to deliver prisoners to court on time, the lack of interpreters, and issues with funding of expert witnesses.”
There has also been a backlash to reports that Mr Lammy has considered going beyond Sir Brian’s recommendations and having jury-less trials for most crimes currently heard at Crown Courts.
The Law Society of England and Wales called it an “extreme measure” and said it has not seen any “real evidence” that it will work to reduce the backlog.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has accused Mr Lammy of abandoning his principles after previously defending juries.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Terrifying. Kafka-esque. Orwellian. To think that any one of us could be beholden to a judge who has, for example, differing political opinions – without the safety net of a jury – is appaling. An emergency measure (coupled with courts sitting for more than a handful of hours a day) is one thing, but as a permanent system this is a betrayal of all we should stand for. Lammy remains a man depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Why not three judges instead of a jury that would much rather be somewhere else.
I think magistrates are often many other civic things in a community… Human nature and affiliations being what they are I would argue that the rules of fair play are probably followed more closely by judges… Matters of internal security to protect us from old hippies and their caring grandchildren should not be on the agenda, most of what is wrong with the UK was supposed to have been fixed ages ago by Mr and Mrs Bumble… ‘Boom and Bust Britain’ A generation without the boom, look to your politicians, those who would jail you for speaking out…the light is… Read more »
@Lemmy not Lammy +Mahmoon; a possible fixing of things in the justice dept. like Twmp…
Anyone with left wing views will be safe, right wingers had better look out.
Inevitable judges will be pressured by the government to rule the way the PM wants.
With all due respect, that viewpoint is utterly delusional.
I think I lost 4 GCSE’S just reading your comment.
On the bright side you do win reply of the day though.
What you’re describing is a failed state.
Awww you poor little lamb. Did you have a fall and bang your head again?
What would J.D.Vance do, only they have so much in common, it’s scary…@Lemmy not Lammy…keep god out of politics…
This is what decades of Tory underfunding have led to; the police, prisons, courts and don’t forget the privatisation mess of the probation service. Safeguards would need to be in place, so lets wait to see the detail.
What does it say about the Tories that they can’t even provide these minimum “night-watchman” public services that libertarians demand. If they are more extreme than minarchists does this make them anarchists?