Jury Trial Reform Faces Retreat After Political and Legal Backlash

Published: 13 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The government’s proposed jury trial reform in England and Wales is facing renewed uncertainty as senior ministers quietly consider concessions following intense political and legal opposition. The plans, first unveiled as a solution to the growing criminal courts backlog, have sparked widespread concern across Parliament and the legal profession, prompting discussions behind closed doors about whether the proposals can survive in their current form.

Within Whitehall, officials acknowledge that while the measures may pass the House of Commons, the House of Lords represents a more formidable challenge. Peers with deep legal experience have raised constitutional concerns, warning that curtailing jury trials risks undermining public confidence in the justice system. As a result, sources indicate that compromises are now being explored to reduce resistance and avoid a high-profile defeat.

At the heart of the controversy lies the proposal to remove the automatic right to a jury trial for defendants facing sentences of up to three years. Under the plan, such cases would instead be heard in a newly created “swift court” within the Crown Court structure, presided over by a judge sitting alone. Ministers argue that this approach would streamline proceedings and accelerate justice for victims, particularly in cases delayed since the pandemic.

The justice secretary, David Lammy, has continued to publicly defend the reforms, presenting them as both pragmatic and necessary. Speaking during a recent visit to Canada, he highlighted international comparisons, noting that single-judge trials for comparable offences have long operated elsewhere. He maintains that the changes could halve the number of jury trials each year and reduce the backlog of around 80,000 unresolved cases within a decade.

Despite this defence, resistance has hardened among MPs, peers, and senior barristers. Critics argue that jury trials are a cornerstone of the English legal tradition, providing transparency and public participation in criminal justice. They warn that replacing juries with judge-only hearings could disproportionately affect defendants charged with “either way” offences, where the choice of trial venue has historically acted as a safeguard.

Behind the scenes, officials are now revisiting recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent review of the criminal justice system. Leveson proposed a new type of criminal court where a judge would sit alongside two lay magistrates, preserving an element of public involvement while increasing efficiency. That compromise, initially rejected by ministers, is once again under serious consideration.

One senior government source suggested that returning to the Leveson model may be the most politically viable route forward. Allowing magistrates to sit with judges, rather than removing lay participation entirely, could address concerns raised in the Lords while still enabling faster case resolution. Such a shift would represent a partial retreat but may prove essential for legislative success.

The scale of the proposed changes has also alarmed some Labour MPs. Karl Turner, a former shadow attorney general, has publicly warned that he may resign his seat if the plans proceed unchanged, triggering a by-election that would embarrass the government. Although ministers believe they can withstand dissent in the Commons, they remain wary of accumulating political costs.

Further controversy surrounds the proposal to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers. The government intends to raise the maximum custodial sentence magistrates can impose from 12 months to 18 months, with flexibility to extend to two years if required. Lawyers argue that such an expansion risks overburdening magistrates’ courts and reducing defendants’ access to jury trials even further.

Supporters of the reforms counter that the justice system is already failing victims through excessive delays. They point to cases taking years to reach trial, with witnesses disengaging and evidence deteriorating over time. From this perspective, jury trial reform is framed as a necessary adaptation rather than an ideological shift, designed to restore efficiency and credibility.

The Ministry of Justice has emphasised that reform will be accompanied by significant investment. Officials highlight increased funding for legal aid, additional sitting days for courts, and the recruitment of more judges. They argue that structural change, combined with financial support, offers the only realistic path to delivering timely justice.

Nevertheless, many legal experts remain unconvinced. They caution that speed should not come at the expense of fairness, and that juries play a vital role in reflecting community standards within the courtroom. Removing that element, they argue, risks concentrating too much power in the hands of the judiciary, regardless of safeguards.

As parliamentary scrutiny intensifies, the government faces a delicate balancing act. Any visible climbdown could reinforce perceptions of policy instability, following recent reversals on taxation and business rates. Yet pressing ahead without compromise risks a bruising confrontation in the Lords that could stall the entire legislative agenda.

For now, ministers continue to publicly support the proposals while privately assessing their options. Whether the final legislation reflects the original vision or a softened version closer to Leveson’s recommendations remains uncertain. What is clear is that jury trial reform has become a defining test of the government’s approach to justice, tradition, and political pragmatism.

The coming weeks are expected to be decisive, as amendments are drafted and alliances formed across party lines. With constitutional principles, public confidence, and practical efficiency all at stake, the outcome will shape the criminal justice system for a generation.

Check our latest news