Jury Trials 2026-01-07

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way; he is always generous with his time. He talks about the length of time it takes for victims to get justice. I speak to police officers in my constituency all the time who say that one of the issues with the backlog, this waiting list, is that people who have been police officers for three years are asked to go to court for cases about things that happened before they were even police officers. Does he recognise that this is a huge challenge that we need to overcome?

As my right hon. Friend squares up to lead civil society in a battle against this monstrous measure, may I ask him to have some sympathy for Labour Members, who are about to be led to the top of the hill once again, as they were with the farm tax and the winter fuel allowance, on a measure that simply will not deliver the solution it is designed to? They will all end up having the rug ripped from under them once again after enduring all the political pain.

My right hon. Friend is being characteristically overgenerous to the Government when he talks about the requirement for modelling. This is not a “Mastermind” question; it is simple arithmetic. Three per cent of trials are by jury. If we do away with half of them, which is more draconian than even the Government are talking about, and there is a difference of 20%, the maximum difference it could make to the throughput of the court system is 0.3%. It will make no difference whatsoever to one of our most fundamental issues, yet it will throw away the most fundamental tenet of our justice system.

The right hon. Member has made some valid points about the situation we face—the fact that 78,000 cases are caught up in the backlog, that many of our constituents are waiting for their day of justice and that justice is being denied, and we know that many people cannot continue to wait—but does he not accept that there was not enough focus on all the issues he has outlined during the last Administration and that they could have done a lot more to resolve them, so that we were not in this difficult situation that we have to find a way to address?

It pains me to say that I agree with the vast majority of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying at the Dispatch Box. He referred to Sir Brian Leveson. Of course, none of us would suggest that Sir Brian does not know what he is doing—he is very eminent and skilful, and has taken a great deal of time to come up with his suggestions—but does the right hon. Gentleman know of any situation before when the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, circuit leaders and every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system have been as one in their opposition to an utterly ludicrous, unworkable policy?

Proposes alternative models to reduce the backlog, citing a model introduced in the south-west by James Ward OBE which used covid resolution courts and case management to bring down the backlog significantly. This intervention alone saved 10 sitting years.

Agrees that alternative solutions should be explored rather than scrapping the right to a jury trial, and suggests focusing on removing pressure from an overwhelmed CPS by giving police greater charging powers as one way forward.

Supports the idea of increasing court dates and cutting ineffective trials but emphasises that justice can be served more efficiently with juries. Points out that in Northern Ireland, Diplock courts are rarely used for serious criminal or terrorist trials.

Asks whether the proposal to limit jury rights is based on technical considerations or ideological views about jury trials being wrong or unnecessary. Questions if this debate aligns with how Scotland manages its criminal justice system.

Asked the Minister about expediting justice for constituents and questioned why the model proposed by James Ward is not being applied, despite its success in reducing delays.

Reaffirmed that swift courts, flow courts, and blitz courts are being operated but cannot keep up with demand due to the 10% increase in arrests and 20% rise in cases at the Crown court. Trials have become more complex, taking twice as long as they did in 2000, leading to justice delays.

Asked whether the Government has done an impact assessment of their proposed amendments but refused to publish it. The Minister confirmed that an impact assessment will be conducted and made available for scrutiny.

Emphasised the struggles faced by communities due to delays in justice, particularly regarding drug dealing and antisocial behaviour. Criticised the shadow Secretary of State's lack of suggestions for addressing these issues.

Cited Sir Brian Leveson's report that jury trials are taking twice as long due to complex evidence and increased pressure on jurors, suggesting a compromise of using a judge and two magistrates for certain cases.

Quoted the Justice Secretary's letter stating that vulnerable victims and witnesses are prioritised in listings. Disagreed with the Minister’s example of a bottle of whisky case being delayed.

Stressed the impact of delays on victims, highlighting cases where criminals can avoid justice for years while victims wait long periods for their day in court.

The Government has invested £92 million in criminal legal aid solicitors and £34 million for criminal defence barristers, with match funding for pupillages. Funding alone won't solve the problem; investment, reform, and modernisation are needed to transform the system. The Government agrees that prisoners should be brought to court more efficiently but argues that reforms beyond funding are necessary.

Welsh Crown courts outperform those in England, although there is a backlog. Scrapping jury trials is unnecessary and could be used as an opportunity to assess the impact of changes compared to England.

90% of criminal cases are heard without a jury trial in magistrates courts. The proposals aim to retain robust and rigorous trials with limited reforms, aligning with expert recommendations from jurisdictions like Canada and New South Wales.

The loss of 10,000 magistrates over the past decade highlights a crisis in the system that was foreseeable. The Opposition's criticism is inconsistent with their previous inaction on magistrate recruitment.

The Government is increasing diversity and recruiting more magistrates to address past under-recruitment issues. The focus is on using the current system effectively through reforms recommended by experts in criminal law.

Proposing an intensive supervision court programme to divert drug-addicted offenders from the criminal justice system, reducing reoffending rates and freeing up court resources.

The swift court model recommended by Sir Brian Leveson is expected to reduce hearing time significantly. It exists in other countries like Canada, where it has proven effective in delivering swifter justice.

Asks about the writing up and reasons given by judges when deciding innocence or guilt without a jury. Concerned that this process could add to court time, questioning if it is practical for judges to write judgments efficiently.

Reasons will be given by judges when deciding cases alone; this transparency benefits those convicted. The evidence from Canada and New South Wales shows that trials by judges take about half the time, making it a practical solution for efficiency.

Points out that reducing jury trials isn't just about courtroom time but also encompasses back office staff and Crown Prosecution Service efforts, highlighting broader system benefits from such reforms.

Asks Sarah Sackman to commit to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for her assertions, suggesting a scrutiny of such evidence in Parliament.

Highlights that the criminal justice system is in disarray due to staff shortages, broken estate, and 10 years of Conservative complacency. Criticises the Government's approach as 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', arguing against removing the right to trial by jury.

Supports Jess Brown-Fuller, emphasising that jury trials are not responsible for the backlog and criticises staff shortages and infrastructure issues as key causes.

Suggests that judges are not specialists in deciding whether someone is telling the truth; thus, a jury of peers would be more reliable for determining the truth in court cases.

The proposal needs a full package of support including barristers, solicitors, CPS lawyers, court clerks and ushers. The Government's plan aims to address inefficiencies in the system by reducing jury trials.

Isleworth Crown court has closed five of its 14 courtrooms due to maintenance issues and sitting day caps. Addressing these issues, increasing the number of court sitting days and addressing workforce problems would help preserve the right to a jury trial.

The debate concerns Sir Brian Leveson's review recommendations that restrict the right to jury trial. The crisis in the Crown court, with trials for serious offences waiting three or four years to be heard, demands comprehensive solutions. Removing sitting day caps would be a significant lever to clear the backlog.

Davis supports the Government's amendment but expresses concerns about removing fundamental elements of the justice system. He criticises the Ministry of Justice for systemic failures over decades and highlights that active judges disagree with Leveson's recommendations. He emphasises the importance of juries in ensuring a fair trial, citing examples where misdirection by judges or errors in court processes led to miscarriages of justice.

Slaughter acknowledges that the Government’s policy does not address morally fundamental aspects of the justice system, such as jury trials. He highlights ongoing issues with court delays affecting victims and defendants, urging the need to repair the battered justice system.

Brown-Fuller's speech was commended by Davis for being well thought-through. Her exact position is not detailed in the provided text, but her contributions are noted as important and considered.

Discusses the growing backlog in criminal cases and expresses strong opposition to the proposal, citing issues with efficiency savings, lack of modelling, and concerns over successful appeals from magistrates courts.

Critiques the principle and policy process behind reducing jury trials, questioning discrepancies in Government claims about reform impact. Emphasises need for transparency regarding modelling and impact assessments. Raises practical concerns over judicial sentencing flexibility and adherence to existing laws.

Grants permission to cross-party objection against the proposal, questions Conservative responsibility in criminal justice system's current state.

The backlog began increasing in 2019 due to real-terms cuts, court closures, and reduction in judges and staff. Backlogs were rising before the pandemic as a result of underlying factors.

Asked about backlogs being higher or lower in 2010 compared to 2019, implying that the current situation is worse despite efforts made before the pandemic.

Questioned if a defendant has the right to appeal for a jury trial after being sentenced without one and receiving a longer sentence. The Minister will clarify this later.

The right to trial by jury is not merely procedural; it is fundamental for liberty under the law. Reform must be justified, proportionate, and supported by evidence. The real causes of delay are capacity issues such as judicial sitting days, dilapidated court estate, and erosion of the criminal Bar.

Agreed with the need to focus on immediate actions to improve efficiency and maintain jury trials rather than dismantling them. Supported the argument that the issue is about capacity, not jury trials.

Asked if investment in courts had been lacking due to 14 years of Conservative Government and received an affirmative response regarding prioritising spending on criminal justice system.

Jury trial is a cornerstone of the British justice system and has evolved over time in response to social needs. The Government's proposals aim to modernise the justice system while retaining jury trials but also include necessary changes for public access to justice.

Jury trials are a fundamental bulwark against tyranny. The Government's plan lacks modelling, impact assessment, or equalities assessment and goes against the review done by Sir Brian Leveson. Labour MPs argue that ordinary people cannot be trusted with jury duty, which is concerning. There are other options such as using unused sitting days and Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal for a judge with two magistrates.

Asked about the importance of modelling and impact assessments in relation to court cases becoming more detailed and complex. Emphasised that defendants must understand the procedure, questioning where savings would come from without these changes.

Acknowledges the importance of jury trials but highlights growing backlogs in court cases due to complex evidence and procedures. Emphasises that Sir Brian Leveson’s review found jury trials are taking twice as long now compared to 2000, necessitating changes.

Supports trial by jury but questions whether Conservative Governments were correct in reducing the number of types of offences heard by juries. Agrees that modernisation is necessary considering changes to criminal trials and evidence presented.

Expresses concern about the argument for expert lawyers arguing cases to an expert judge, suggesting it could lead to further erosion of rights through reducing appeal rights. Supports Saqib Bhatti's stance against undermining trial by jury.

Critiques the government for proposing to remove the right to a jury trial for offences with likely sentences of less than three years, aiming to reduce backlog but without credible evidence. She cites local barristers urging her to speak against the proposal and highlights lack of data, impact assessments or pilot schemes backing the change.

Opposes plans to restrict jury trials, arguing it lacks rationale and credible evidence. Questions how curtailing jury trials will address court backlog when only 3% of cases are jury cases. Highlights need for addressing unplanned closures and empty courtrooms instead. Emphasises the safeguarding role of jury involvement in delivering justice against groupthink or bias.

The right to a trial by jury is one that has stood at the very centre of our criminal justice system for centuries. It is a crucial check on the power of the state as it undertakes one of the most solemn duties: to try a citizen and to determine guilt or innocence. Instead of taking practical and obvious measures, such as fully utilising courtrooms that sit empty, the Government have chosen a destructive option unlikely to adequately address the pressure on the system. The jury system embodies public consent and is more robust, resilient, and trustworthy than judge-only trials which risk victims’ trust in fairness and defendants’ confidence of fair judgement by peers. Juries also play a vital role ensuring justice due to their broad range of experience drawn from communities they serve.

Trial by jury is one of this country’s most fundamental rights. The Government’s proposals on jury trials suggest a pattern of curtailment of the voice and freedom of British people, such as abolishing local councils, cancelling elections, and imposing an authoritarian digital identity scheme. Ministers should focus on practical measures like removing the cap on sitting days to ensure courts work at full capacity or eliminating inefficiencies in the system which waste court time.

There is no mandate to reduce trial by jury, a profound constitutional shift that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. There is absolutely no evidence that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog, as the Government have produced no modelling, data or analysis to justify this decision. The Bar Council has raised alarm bells over this constitutional gamble without any justification provided.

Based on professional life as a criminal barrister and experience in Northern Ireland with both jury trials and judge-alone trials, public confidence is far higher when 12 peers make the decision than in a single judge making it. The loss of time and delays come primarily from delays in providing disclosure and witnesses not being available; this will not change under new system but there will be a body blow to confidence in judicial system.

Asked Ben Obese-Jecty if the hon. Member would still oppose even the principle of structural reform, even if it is necessary to cut the backlog and keep it down.

Emphasised that trial by jury is not a luxury but one of the oldest and most fundamental protections in this country. Urged the Government to lift the cap on court sitting days as it makes no sense to pay for court buildings, judges, and staff only to prevent them from operating fully.

Argued that trial by jury is an ancient right in England and the very essence of our criminal justice system. Questioned why the Lord Chancellor believes abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less would bring down the backlog.

Responded that staff absence in the Crown court system may be due to burnout from years of cuts, and urged for investment in the system so it can get back on its feet.

Questioned the Government's reluctance to provide an impact assessment, highlighting a fundamental change after 800 years of legal precedent. Raised concerns about ideological shifts and lack of transparency in decision-making.

Disagreed with the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, arguing against the curtailment of jury trials due to a lack of evidence and previous opposition. Cited historical context for jury trials during wartime and emphasised the importance of maintaining balance in the justice system.

Curtailing jury trials will not solve court delays but push back the backlog to appeal courts, potentially creating a two-tier justice system where only those who can afford appeals have recourse.

Reiterates concerns about permanent measures for temporary problems and highlights flaws in government arguments. Cites wasted court sitting days and legal associations' warnings against restricting jury trials.

Asked about the increase in pressure on court services due to cracking down on legitimate protests, questioning if an assessment has been made.