Jury trial reform to clear UK courts backlog in a decade

Published: 12 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The debate over jury trial reform has moved to the centre of British politics as ministers confront an unprecedented criminal courts backlog. Speaking during an overseas visit, the lord chancellor and deputy prime minister, David Lammy, argued that reducing the number of jury trials could transform the justice system’s capacity. He suggested that adopting a Canadian-style model, where many cases are decided by a single judge, might clear the accumulated delays within a decade. His comments have intensified discussion across parliament, the legal profession, and wider society, raising profound questions about fairness, efficiency, and public confidence.

Within the first moments of the debate, jury trial reform was framed as a response to necessity rather than ideology. The courts of England and Wales are currently struggling with nearly eighty thousand unresolved criminal trials. Many defendants wait years for their cases to be heard, while victims endure prolonged uncertainty. Lammy contends that without structural change, the backlog will continue to grow, driven by rising arrest rates and increasingly complex evidence. He warns that the system risks becoming unworkable unless parliament acts decisively.

Lammy’s proposals focus on cases where defendants are unlikely to receive sentences longer than three years. Under his plan, these cases would no longer automatically qualify for a jury trial. Instead, they would be heard by a single judge in what the government describes as swift courts. The intention is to reduce the annual number of jury trials significantly, freeing up judicial resources for the most serious offences. Ministers argue that such changes could halve waiting times and restore momentum to the criminal justice process.

The inspiration for these measures comes from Canada, where judge-only trials are well established. During a visit to Toronto, Lammy observed proceedings in which defendants facing custodial sentences had their cases heard without a jury. He described the process as routine and widely accepted within that legal culture. According to Lammy, many Canadian defendants prefer the clarity and speed of a single judge, believing it can lead to more consistent outcomes. He believes similar attitudes could emerge in England and Wales over time.

However, the proposals have exposed divisions within the governing party. Several Labour MPs have expressed unease, warning that reducing jury trials could disproportionately affect working-class defendants and people from minority ethnic backgrounds. They argue that juries play a vital role in reflecting community values and guarding against institutional bias. For these critics, jury trial reform risks weakening a cornerstone of democratic justice that has endured for centuries.

The most dramatic opposition has come from Karl Turner, the MP for Kingston upon Hull East and a former shadow attorney general. Turner has described the proposals as fundamentally flawed and has even suggested he could resign and force a byelection if the government proceeds. He broke the party whip to vote against the measures, arguing that they would fail to deliver the promised benefits. Turner claims that the changes are motivated more by cost-saving than by genuine concern for justice.

Central to the controversy is whether the reforms would deliver results quickly enough. Lammy acknowledges that legislative change takes time, but he remains optimistic. He has said he would like to see the backlog begin to fall by the end of the decade, with substantial progress before the next general election. When pressed on whether the problem could be resolved entirely by the mid-2030s, he responded confidently in the affirmative. His critics remain unconvinced, pointing to the long timelines involved in recruiting and training additional judges.

Another contentious aspect involves limiting appeals from magistrates’ courts to crown courts. Under the proposals, magistrates would gain extended sentencing powers, increasing their maximum authority from one year to at least eighteen months. Supporters argue this would reduce pressure on higher courts and streamline the system. Opponents fear it could restrict defendants’ rights and reduce oversight in contentious cases. These concerns have fuelled calls for safeguards, including a possible sunset clause.

A sunset clause would allow the reforms to expire once the backlog is reduced, restoring previous arrangements. Many MPs and legal experts see this as a compromise that balances urgency with caution. Lammy has not ruled out such a provision, saying he remains open to discussion with parliamentarians. Nevertheless, he has stressed that reform is unavoidable if the criminal justice system is to remain effective. In his view, preserving tradition at the expense of functionality would serve nobody.

The legal profession has offered a more measured critique. Richard Atkinson, the immediate past president of the Law Society, has warned that focusing solely on judge-led courts overlooks other practical solutions. He points to unused court buildings that could be reopened, increased investment in legal aid, and greater use of early mediation. Atkinson notes that Canada’s success depends on broader reforms, including strict time limits and substantial funding increases. He cautions against transplanting one element of a foreign system without adopting its wider context.

Public opinion remains divided. Some victims’ groups support measures that promise faster justice, arguing that lengthy delays compound trauma. Others fear that speed could come at the cost of thoroughness. Civil liberties organisations have echoed concerns about accountability, emphasising the symbolic importance of juries as a check on state power. For them, jury trial reform represents a profound shift in the balance between efficiency and democratic participation.

Economically, the government argues that the costs of inaction are rising. Delayed trials require repeated hearings, extended legal aid payments, and prolonged remand periods. Ministers believe that reducing jury trials would ultimately save public money while improving outcomes. Critics counter that establishing new courts and appointing judges would offset any savings. They also question whether financial considerations should drive changes to fundamental rights.

Historically, jury trials have been regarded as a defining feature of British justice. Their defenders see them as a living link between citizens and the law. Reformers respond that the system has evolved before and must continue to adapt. They argue that maintaining public confidence depends not only on tradition but also on delivering timely justice. In this sense, the current debate reflects broader tensions between heritage and modernisation.

As parliament prepares for further scrutiny, the stakes are high. The government faces the challenge of persuading sceptical MPs and a cautious public that its proposals will strengthen, rather than erode, justice. Whether jury trial reform becomes a lasting feature or a temporary experiment may depend on the compromises reached in the months ahead. What is clear is that the pressure on the courts has forced a reckoning that can no longer be postponed.

Check our latest news