04.12.2025
In recent days, the legal community and broader public have been closely following Justice Secretary David Lammy's proposals to reform jury trials in England and Wales. After initial reports suggesting a dramatic reduction in jury trials, Lammy has now unveiled a more measured but still significant "Swift Courts" plan that will fundamentally alter access to jury trials for many defendants.
The New Reforms: Scaled Back Yet Still Substantial
David Lammy has announced that jury trials will be scrapped for cases where sentences are likely to be less than three years. While this represents a step back from earlier proposals that would have eliminated most jury trials entirely, the changes remain a significant departure from centuries of legal tradition.
Under the new "Swift Courts" plan, jury trials will be preserved for the most serious offences. However, a substantial number of cases typically tried by juries - those carrying expected sentences under three years - will now be heard by judges alone. The government will also boost magistrates' sentencing powers as part of this package of reforms.
Lammy has also said that technically complex, lengthy fraud and financial trials will be routed into judge‑only sittings within the “Swift Courts” tier, intended to reduce juror burden and speed case progression.
Under the proposed reforms — influenced by a recommendation from Lord Leveson’s proposals, defendants could lose the right to opt for a jury where matters might be dealt with by magistrates or a new judge‑only Crown Court. In practice this would bar jury trials for many fraud and complex financial cases. That shift centralises adjudication at a time when public scrutiny of corporate wrongdoing is at an all-time high.
Legal Professionals at the Helm of Controversial Change
Perhaps most perplexing about these reforms is that they come from a government led by Sir Keir Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, with Justice Secretary David Lammy—himself a trained barrister—as its architect. That two legal professionals, who have built careers understanding the intricacies and importance of our justice system, would propose such a significant reduction in citizen participation in justice raises serious questions.
Even more troubling is Lammy's apparent reversal of position. Just a few years ago, he championed the importance of jury trials and their role in ensuring justice, particularly for marginalised communities. This shift from defender to reformer of jury rights suggests policy being driven more by administrative convenience than principled conviction about justice.
Addressing a Real Crisis
The government correctly identifies the unacceptable court backlog as a pressing issue. With approximately 78,000 cases awaiting Crown Court trial and projections suggesting this could rise to over 100,000 by 2028, the current delays—with victims and defendants waiting years for justice—indeed constitute a crisis requiring urgent attention.
The "Swift Courts" plan aims to speed up verdicts by 20%, a laudable goal in theory. However, the question remains whether restricting access to jury trials represents a proportionate response to what may be a temporary, albeit severe, problem.
The Enduring Value of Jury Trials
The participation of ordinary citizens in the administration of justice serves multiple crucial functions:
- It ensures decisions reflect community standards and values rather than purely legal technicalities
- It provides democratic legitimacy to the justice system
- It protects against potential institutional biases within the legal establishment
- It increases public understanding of and confidence in the legal system
Many judges themselves continue to support the jury system despite its occasional challenges.
Addressing the real issues
The current backlog stems not from inherent flaws in jury trials but from chronic underfunding, inadequate court infrastructure, and systemic inefficiencies. The solution lies in comprehensive reform coupled with proper resourcing:
· Increased investment in court facilities and staffing
- Modernisation of case management systems
- Addressing the shortage of judges and legal professionals
- Implementing more efficient pre-trial procedures
The Risk to Public Trust
Removing citizens from the justice process for a significant portion of criminal cases risks eroding public confidence in a system already under scrutiny. When ordinary people participate in administering justice, it creates a crucial bridge between legal institutions and the communities they serve.
Cases that might have very different outcomes without jury involvement demonstrate the system's value. The collective wisdom and diverse perspectives of jury members often provide important safeguards against potential miscarriages of justice.
Conclusion
While the backlog in our courts demands urgent attention, the approach taken in the "Swift Courts" reforms, which limits access to jury trials for many defendants, would be a disproportionate and irreversible response. Once removed from our legal system, this fundamental right could be permanently diminished.
The government must resist the temptation of quick fixes and instead commit to the harder but necessary work of comprehensive justice reform. Our legal system needs investment and modernization—not the abandonment of principles that have served as the bedrock of British justice for centuries.
That those proposing these changes have themselves benefited from legal careers makes their wish to restrict jury trials all the more concerning. When legal professionals who once championed the importance of jury trials now seek to curtail them, we must question whether administrative expediency has trumped the principles of justice they once upheld.
Jury trials remain sacrosanct not merely as a matter of tradition, but as an essential component of a justice system that is fair, accountable, and worthy of public trust. The government should carefully consider the long-term implications of these reforms on public confidence and the integrity of the justice system itself.
This article was drafted by Arozo Gajia.
back to news and insights