← Back to House of Commons Debates
Jury Trials 2026-01-07
07 January 2026
Lead MP
Robert Jenrick
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Justice & CourtsTaxation
Other Contributors: 66
At a Glance
Robert Jenrick raised concerns about jury trials 2026-01-07 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That this House believes that it is wrong to abolish jury trials for crimes with anticipated sentences of three years or less because jury trials are a fundamental part of the UK constitution and democracy; acknowledges the scale of the courts backlog and the necessity of reducing it to ensure justice for victims but believes that restricting the fundamental right to trial by jury will have a limited effect on reducing that backlog; calls on the Government to increase the number of court sitting days to help urgently reduce the backlog; and further calls on the Government to publish immediately all modelling it has undertaken and received on the potential impact of the abolition of jury trials on that backlog.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
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?
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
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.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
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.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab/Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
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?
Karl Turner
Lab
Kingston upon Hull East
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?
Murrison
Con
South Dorset
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.
Gosport
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.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
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.
John Grady
Lab
Glasgow East
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.
Murrison
Con
South West Surrey
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.
Sarah Sackman
Con
Wythenshawe and Sale East
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.
James Wild
Con
North West Norfolk
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.
Rachel Blake
Lab/Co-op
Cities of London and Westminster
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.
Warinder Juss
Lab
Wolverhampton West
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.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
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.
Natalie Fleet
Lab
Bolsover
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.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
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.
David Smith
Lab
North Northumberland
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.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
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.
Karl Turner
Lab
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.
Amber Valley
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.
Robert Jenrick
Con
Nottingham East
Asks Sarah Sackman to commit to publishing the modelling and evidence basis for her assertions, suggesting a scrutiny of such evidence in Parliament.
Chichester
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.
Stratford-on-Avon
Supports Jess Brown-Fuller, emphasising that jury trials are not responsible for the backlog and criticises staff shortages and infrastructure issues as key causes.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
Munira Wilson
Lib Dem
Twickenham
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.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
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.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Fulham
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.
Chichester
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.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
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.
Siân Berry
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Grants permission to cross-party objection against the proposal, questions Conservative responsibility in criminal justice system's current state.
Derby North
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.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
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.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
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.
Solihull West and Shirley
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.
Alison Griffiths
Con
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
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.
Derby North
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.
Pam Cox
Lab
Colchester
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.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Rutland and Stamford
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.
Ayoub Khan
Con
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.
Derby North
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.
Derby North
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.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
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.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
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.
Rebecca Paul
Con
Reigate
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.
Aphra Brandreth
Con
Chester South and Eddisbury
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.
Lewis Cocking
Con
Broxbourne
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.
Blake Stephenson
Con
Mid Bedfordshire
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.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
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.
Tony Vaughan
Lab
Folkestone and Hythe
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.
Monica Harding
Liberal Democrats
Esher and Walton
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.
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
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.
Tom Hayes
Lab
Bournemouth East
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.
Jim Allister
Ind
North Antrim
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.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
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.
Adnan Hussain
Ind
Blackburn
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.
Tom Gordon
LD
Harrogate and Knaresborough
Asked about the increase in pressure on court services due to cracking down on legitimate protests, questioning if an assessment has been made.
Government Response
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis due to Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts under the previous government. They support reforms based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts which aims to improve efficiency across the court system and ensure victims can have confidence in the reforms. The Government has invested in criminal legal aid solicitors and barristers, with match funding for pupillages. The focus is on reforming the system through investment, modernisation, and efficient use of resources based on expert recommendations from other jurisdictions. Committed to publishing an impact assessment and evidence basis when bringing forward formal Government response. Defends the proposition by citing international comparisons, Sir Brian Leveson's independent expert review, and Ministry of Justice data on triable either way cases. The debate was framed as a crisis inherited from the previous Conservative Government, with suggestions to increase court sitting days dismissed due to closures under their tenure. The Minister emphasised the need for modernisation and investment in infrastructure, stressing that reforms are evidence-based and driven by necessity rather than mythological traditions. He clarified that only 10% of cases currently involve jury trials, reducing to 1.5% with proposed changes, and defended past Conservative measures like Margaret Thatcher’s reclassification of certain crimes.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
Criticises the Government’s approach as irresponsible and dangerous. Argues for a focus on logistical and infrastructure issues rather than removing the right to trial by jury, citing Leveson's original suggestion of a Crown court bench division model. Critiqued the Government's proposal as poorly evidenced, highlighting contradictions in previous positions on jury trials. Emphasised the historical importance of jury trials and criticised the lack of evidence for proposed changes. Emphasised the need for modernisation of the criminal justice system to address the record and rising caseload inherited from Conservative mismanagement. Acknowledged the necessity for investment, reforms based on Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations, and ensuring public confidence in the courts.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.