House of Commons · Urgent Question
27 November 2025 · 27 other contributors
Opened by Robert Jenrick Con Newark
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Robert Jenrick raised concerns about right to trial by jury 2025-11-27 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Will the Minister confirm the Government's plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases? The urgency stems from recent reports suggesting changes that could undermine centuries of legal tradition and affect victims' rights to a fair trial. Robert Jenrick is concerned about the potential impact on justice delayed.
Question
Will the Minister protect fundamental democratic principles or discard centuries of jury trials without consultation?
Minister reply
The right to a fair trial remains protected, including for serious cases. The current backlog denies justice to victims; delays mean witnesses pulling out, undermining fairness. We are considering reforms in line with Sir Brian Leveson's review recommendations.
Question
What clear evidence justifies going beyond Leveson’s proposals? When will the Government respond to his report?
Minister reply
No final decisions have been made. We are considering Sir Brian's blueprint thoroughly, including judge-only trials and reviewing magistrate courts' sentencing powers. A detailed response will be forthcoming.
Question
Is the proposed restriction a temporary measure or permanent erosion? Is there concern over budget cuts affecting court facilities?
Minister reply
No final decisions have been made; careful consideration is being given. We are addressing delays but acknowledge challenges in securing additional premises quickly.
Question
Sir Edward Leigh, a former barrister who has served on juries, expressed concern about the impact of proposed changes to jury trials on individuals with previous good character accused of minor crimes. He argued that such reforms could undermine centuries of legal tradition and warned against throwing away this cornerstone of justice without careful consideration.
Minister reply
The Minister agreed that jury trials are a cornerstone of British justice for serious cases, but stressed the need to consider proportionality. She highlighted that 90% of cases currently do not require juries, and only 3% involve jury trials. The Minister acknowledged the value of jury trials while emphasising the necessity of addressing current backlogs and delays in the system.
Question
Mr. Abbott criticised the Conservative party for its record on law and order, pointing out that prior to the pandemic, there had been a reduction in sitting days by over 20% since 2015-16, leading to an increase in court backlogs even before the impact of covid.
Minister reply
The Minister agreed with Mr. Abbott's point about inherited record and rising backlogs, acknowledging that underinvestment was a contributing factor, alongside the demand from more arrests and charging decisions by police.
Question
The hon. Member questioned whether the Government's approach to addressing inefficiencies in the criminal justice system was solely based on Sir Brian Leveson’s report, rather than engaging with relevant organisations like the Bar Council.
Minister reply
Minister Sarah Sackman stated that she regularly engages with various stakeholders including the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. She highlighted that these bodies agree on the need for addressing inefficiencies in the system.
Question
Ms. Foody noted an increase in individuals opting for jury trials for either-way offences, suggesting this could be gaming the system to avoid timely justice.
Minister reply
The Minister agreed that there are instances of career criminals choosing jury trials strategically to delay proceedings and pointed out how these delays can affect witnesses and court operations negatively.
Question
Ms. Morton suggested reflecting on Conservative Members' concerns and utilizing temporary measures like those used during the pandemic to speed up trials.
Minister reply
The Minister stated that increasing capacity is essential, but unlike her party, she emphasised ongoing investments such as more sitting days, judges, prosecutors, court ushers, and an ambitious recruitment programme for magistrates.
Question
Mr. Johnson questioned the impact of proposed reforms on racial bias in the justice system, pointing to a lack of diversity among judges and the risk these proposals might deepen disproportionality.
Minister reply
The Minister did not provide a direct response as the question was cut off mid-sentence.
Question
Was it a question? Was it a statement? Was it a rant? It displays a serious lack of seriousness. We have a backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim.
Minister reply
We are not sitting back; we are responding to an independent review with detailed, carefully considered evidence-based recommendations. We care about swifter justice for victims.
Question
As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is spot on. We are working towards reforms and implementing them because we care about swifter justice for victims.
Question
Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to focus on efficiencies and use of technology, which is why the Ministry of Justice is looking at greater use of artificial intelligence for transcription tools and case summarisation.
Question
I welcome the Minister’s serious approach to dealing with this difficult issue. My inbox is full of heartbreaking casework. Some of the most heartbreaking is from victims of crime who are anguished, hurt and deprived of justice because of delays in the system and because the system is broken.
Minister reply
I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work to think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog.
Question
The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of the Magna Carta which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents.
Minister reply
Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial.
Question
I recently met the local Crown Prosecution Service in Exeter, which informed me that, as has been discussed, defendants who have the choice often choose a jury trial to delay their case and game the system. Because of that, 10% of adult rape cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rape and serious sexual offences are one of the most poignant and difficult areas.
Question
With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent?
Minister reply
I utterly reject the premise of that question. I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee a fair trial.
Question
Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?
Minister reply
Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country.
Question
The Minister rightly calls out the issues for rape victims, and she might want to have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is closing down police stations so that there is nowhere for people to report. I recently visited Harrow Crown court, which is temporarily placed in Hendon magistrates court while the building in Harrow is rebuilt.
Minister reply
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow.
Question
Is the Minister content with reducing jury trial rights due to capacity issues? Shouldn't investment be made instead to address the backlog?
Minister reply
We are putting record investment into sitting days, our lawyers and legal aid, and technology. However, structural reform is also needed as evidence often gets stale over time, undermining fairness in trials.
Question
How does the Minister reconcile her statements about swift justice with support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Minister reply
I am right to focus on criminal court backlogs in England and Wales. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is a fair piece of legislation that I stand by.
Question
Does the Minister agree that fewer courts due to closures are significant factors in reduced access to justice, and must this be addressed as a priority?
Minister reply
I pay attention to regional disparities in court backlogs. Fewer courts and their distance from communities do impact access to justice, which needs to be addressed with investment, structural reform, and modernisation.
Question
Does the Minister accept that asylum seekers are exploiting court delays? Will she consider restricting jury trials for British citizens only?
Minister reply
Asylum cases are heard in immigration tribunals, not criminal courts. We are making investment and sitting at maximum capacity to process these cases swiftly.
Question
Does the Minister agree that this decision will set a dangerous precedent? Will she ensure it is temporary?
Minister reply
This decision is prompted by an acute crisis. We need to invest in the system and through structural reform to clear the backlog, but we are committed to revisiting the measure when justice can be swift for victims.
Question
Does the Minister agree that the decision goes beyond finances? The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is fundamental.
Minister reply
We must guarantee jury trials for serious cases, but not at the expense of fairness for victims waiting years for their day in court. People may be gaming the system.
Question
Is this another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury? Will she acknowledge defeat like Tony Blair’s Administration?
Minister reply
No, the context is different with record backlogs. We have solutions, whereas Conservatives only criticise without offering answers.
Question
How will this decision impact public perception and undermine civic duty? How was an assessment made?
Minister reply
British public has confidence in jury trials. However, fairness is undermined when victims wait years for their day in court. An independent expert review was conducted with international comparisons.
Government Response
The Government inherited an emergency in criminal courts with record caseloads leading to delays for victims seeking justice. Sir Brian Leveson conducted a review recommending bold action to modernise the system, though no final decisions have been made yet. The right to trial by jury remains fundamental; however, reforms are necessary due to the backlog of 80,000 cases. No one disputes that the current system is broken and needs fixing through investment in sitting days, legal aid, and structural reform.