Judge-only trials won’t cut Crown Court backlog

Published: 22 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The UK government’s proposal to expand judge-only trials across England and Wales is facing renewed scrutiny after a detailed policy assessment questioned its overall effectiveness. According to the Institute for Government, the much-debated reform would deliver only limited relief to the mounting Crown Court backlog, despite significantly reducing the number of jury-led hearings. The findings have reignited debate within the legal community and Parliament, where concerns already run deep about public confidence, fairness, and long-term court efficiency.

The report argues that although jury trials would fall by roughly half under the proposals, the actual time saved inside Crown Courts would be minimal. Analysts estimate that the entire package of changes, including shifts to magistrates’ courts, would reduce courtroom time by between seven and ten percent. Within that figure, judge-only trials themselves would account for less than two percent of time savings, a figure the think tank described as marginal rather than transformative.

At the heart of the policy is Justice Secretary David Lammy’s plan to speed up criminal proceedings by removing juries from selected cases. The intention is to tackle historic delays that have left victims, witnesses, and defendants waiting months or even years for outcomes. However, the Institute for Government suggests the structural causes of the backlog lie elsewhere, particularly in staffing shortages, outdated technology, and reduced daily court productivity.

Cassia Rowland, the report’s author, warned that expectations around the reform risk being overstated. She explained that the Crown Court spends substantial time on hearings that would not be affected by the changes. Many cases involve procedural matters, sentencing, or complex pre-trial stages that remain time intensive regardless of jury involvement. As a result, the removal of juries from some trials does not automatically translate into proportional time savings.

The report also highlights that cases likely to be shifted away from jury trials tend to be less serious offences. These cases are already shorter on average and therefore contribute less to overall delays. While judge-only trials may conclude around twenty percent faster than jury trials, they would represent only a quarter of Crown Court trials under current projections. This limited reach significantly reduces their potential impact on the backlog.

Legal opposition to the proposals has been swift and vocal. Senior barristers, solicitors, and judges have raised concerns about fairness and legitimacy. Many argue that juries play a central role in maintaining public trust within the criminal justice system. Removing them from a wider range of cases, critics say, risks alienating communities and undermining transparency at a time when confidence is already fragile.

The Institute for Government report also notes political resistance. Dozens of Labour MPs and peers have expressed unease, despite the policy originating from their own party leadership. Several have warned that expanding judge-only trials could be perceived as prioritising administrative convenience over democratic participation in justice. The controversy is compounded by the government’s decision to withhold its own impact assessment until draft legislation is formally introduced.

The current proposal differs from earlier reform ideas. A government-commissioned review led by Sir Brian Leveson previously recommended a hybrid model, involving a single judge sitting alongside two lay members in a new Crown Court division. That approach aimed to preserve public involvement while improving efficiency. However, the lay element was ultimately dropped, intensifying criticism from across the legal sector.

While questioning the government’s chosen route, the Institute for Government does not dismiss the need for reform. Instead, it argues that productivity improvements would deliver faster and more meaningful results. Court data shows that Crown Courts are hearing almost twenty percent fewer hours per sitting day compared with figures from the mid-2010s. This decline, the report suggests, has had a direct effect on the growing backlog.

If courts had maintained earlier productivity levels, thousands of cases could have been resolved more quickly. Instead, the backlog increased by nearly eight thousand cases in a single year, representing around a ten percent rise. These figures underline the report’s conclusion that efficiency, rather than structural trial changes, should be the primary focus of reform efforts.

Investment in staff and digital systems is repeatedly highlighted as the most promising solution. Judges, court clerks, and legal professionals are operating under sustained pressure, with recruitment and retention challenges affecting performance nationwide. Modern case management technology, the report argues, could significantly reduce delays caused by paperwork, scheduling conflicts, and administrative errors.

Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, echoed these concerns. He stated that meaningful progress would require targeted funding and reforms that directly address operational bottlenecks. In his view, expanding judge-only trials risks distracting from the practical measures that would most benefit victims and defendants alike.

The Ministry of Justice has strongly disputed the Institute for Government’s conclusions. A spokesperson said internal assessments suggest reforms could reduce case times by at least twenty percent. The ministry has also pointed to international experience, including Canada, where judges reportedly achieved far greater efficiencies under similar models. Ministers argue that combining structural reform with investment is essential to restoring timely justice.

Despite these assurances, uncertainty remains. The delayed publication of the government’s impact assessment has fuelled scepticism among critics, who are calling for greater transparency before legislation advances. Many within the legal profession believe that without clear evidence, expanding judge-only trials risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a solution grounded in operational reality.

For victims waiting years for closure, the stakes are high. Long delays can weaken evidence, strain mental health, and erode faith in the justice system. The debate now centres on whether the proposed reforms will genuinely address these issues or simply reshape court processes without tackling their root causes.

As Parliament prepares to scrutinise the forthcoming bill, the discussion is likely to intensify. Balancing speed, fairness, and public confidence remains a complex challenge. The Institute for Government’s report suggests that while reform is necessary, the path chosen must align closely with where delays actually occur. Without that alignment, even well-intentioned changes may fall short of delivering the swift justice that the public expects.

Check our latest news