Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Jury Trials

Thursday 4 June 2026 · 5 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 4 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Government inherited a Crown court backlog of 80,000 criminal cases and is investing over 2.5 billion to address it.
  • Access to a jury trial is determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending, not by the defendant's previous convictions.
  • The Government's proposals suggest saving around 27,000 Crown court sitting days a year starting from April 2028-29.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Neil Shastri-Hurst Con Solihull West and Shirley
Justice & Courts
Context

The MP is concerned about the potential impact of restricting right to jury trials on the rule of law.

Question

What advice has been provided to the Government on the potential impact of restricting the right to jury trials on the rule of law?

Answer from Ellie Reeves

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a backlog of 80,000 criminal cases in the Crown court. That is why we are investing over £2.5 billion in our courts to fund unlimited sitting days, boost legal aid and, ultimately, speed up justice for victims. Let me be clear: jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system, but justice delayed is justice denied.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific advice provided was not addressed.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Neil Shastri-Hurst Con Solihull West and Shirley
Crime & Law Enforcement Justice & Courts
Context

The MP is questioning how restricting jury trials aligns with the rule of law, using a hypothetical case to illustrate.

Question

Imagine a scenario in which two individuals are both charged with the same offence and the factual matrix of each case is identical. However, the first defendant has a string of previous convictions, whereas the second has none. Under the Government's proposal, the first defendant would be able to elect for a jury trial, depending on the length of the potential sentence, whereas the second would not. How does that align with the Solicitor General's assessment of the rule of law?

Answer from Ellie Reeves

Access to a jury trial is determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending, not by who the defendant is. As the hon. Gentleman will know, likely sentence is already used to determine court allocation and is a feature of our system. Every defendant in the Crown court will receive a fair trial, and that is not affected by the mode of trial decision.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific alignment with rule of law was not addressed.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Jonathan Brash Lab Hartlepool
Justice & Courts
Context

The MP is seeking clarity on the impact assessment and the reason behind making changes permanent rather than temporary.

Question

There is considerable scepticism across the House, and among experts outside this place, including in the Criminal Bar Association, about whether restricting jury trials will have any impact on the backlog. Does the Solicitor General understand the confusion of many Members about why we simply do not make the change temporary, and then have a review to find out if it actually works?

Answer from Ellie Reeves

The impact assessment, taken with the investment in the system, suggests that around 27,000 Crown court sitting days a year will be saved from 1 April 2028-29, speeding up justice for victims. The Institute for Government has agreed that the modelling is sound. That is likely to save about 20%, in terms of time.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The reason behind making changes permanent was not addressed.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Helen Grant Con Maidstone and Malling
Justice & Courts
Context

The MP is questioning the Government's proposals in contrast to Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations.

Question

Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a jury trial in cases involving offences that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years. Cases would be heard by a judge, sitting alongside two magistrates, in a Crown court bench division. The Government's proposals go much further. They seek to remove the right to jury trial for offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone. Why have the Government departed from Sir Brian's recommendations in two important respects, both of which make serious inroads into the right to be heard by a jury?

Answer from Ellie Reeves

As I set out, we inherited a courts system in crisis, with victims waiting years for their cases to get to court. We have all heard the stories of rape victims waiting three or four years for their cases to get to court. That is unacceptable, and it is why inaction is not an option, and why we have invested over £2.5 billion in our courts system. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system. It is right, however—given the backlog that we face, and given that Sir Brian said that investment alone will not shift the dial—that we look at the jury system, which has not been looked at since the 1970s, to see what more we can do to make sure that cases get to court quicker and are heard, giving justice to both victims and defendants.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific reasons for deviating from Sir Brian's recommendations were not provided.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 Helen Grant Con Maidstone and Malling
Justice & Courts
Context

The MP is questioning the Justice Minister's conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee.

Question

Given the Justice Minister's conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, and given the Solicitor General's responsibility for upholding the rule of law, will she confirm whether a decision that a defendant on trial will face a judge, sitting alone, will be subject to judicial review?

Answer from Ellie Reeves

I will take away the hon. Lady's comments, discuss them with Justice Ministers and confirm the position to her in writing.

Not addressed: The specific question about judicial review was not addressed.

How: Will Take Away The Comments, Discuss With Justice Ministers

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)