Garden Court North’s crime team: Government’s ill-considered proposals to limit jury trials will result in irrevocable damage for no tangible gain

23 January 2026

Garden Court North’s Nina Grahame KC will join barristers at a Parliamentary Lobby Day at Westminster on 3 February to discuss the proposed jury reforms. Credit: HY-DP / Shutterstock.

Garden Court North’s crime team unequivocally opposes the Government’s proposal to restrict the right to a jury trial, a proposal to irrevocably damage a fair, tried and tested system providing justice to all members of society.

Justice Secretary David Lammy has set forward a proposal to limit jury trials to accusations of rape, murder and certain ‘public interest’ cases, with most defendants instead tried by a single judge, who would determine guilt and pass sentences up to five years in prison. This proposal followed a series of recommendations made by senior judge Sir Brian Leveson in July 2025.

Abolishing or limiting jury trials in any capacity would weaken the foundations of transparency, fairness and balance embedded in our justice system. Trial by jury ensures that criminal allegations are judged by our fellow citizens, the random selection of whom is representative of wider society, and is especially important for vulnerable defendants and complainants.

The introduction of judge-only trials for almost all criminal cases would increase the risk of miscarriages of justice, further undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system – and leave England and Wales as an outlier compared to most democracies around the world.

Garden Court North’s Nina Grahame KC, who will join fellow barristers at a Parliamentary Lobby Day at Westminster on 3 February, said the proposed system is “untried, untested and the claimed level of reductions is wholly undermined by even the briefest statistical analysis”.

Nina stated: “Confidence in the integrity of government claims is still further undermined by the lack of any detail or modelling and the wholly inconsistent assertions concerning such important issues as retrospective application. It seems that the government cannot now even be clear about why they are pursuing this course – first it was to deal with the backlog but more recently the Justice Minister asserted that the proposals were motivated by an unspecified ‘ideology’”.

A “marginal” impact on the court backlog

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Government’s proposal will reduce the ever-growing backlog in the Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Court. On Wednesday (21 January 2026), Cassia Rowland from the Institute for Government released a report which confirmed, through careful analysis, that “the time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best” and the proposal “will not fix the problems in the Crown Court”.

Last November, more than 100 lawyers wrote a letter to the Justice Secretary warning that adopting the recommendations of the report would be an “irremediable error”. The Four Bars of England and Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland have also released a joint statement urging the Government to change course.

Research by the Institute for Government has pinpointed high workloads, staff shortages, poor court administration, crumbling buildings, and technological problems as the primary factors why magistrates’ courts and the crown court are processing fewer cases per day then before the pandemic.

Instead of the current proposal, Garden Court North’s crime team and a raft of other legal experts have called on the Government to address the backlog through comprehensive investment in legal aid, court infrastructure, and judicial appointments.

Nina added: “The proposed reduction to the backlog would not be substantial. Crown court trials overall represent only about 2-3% of all criminal cases as over 90% are heard by magistrates – of the remainder that go to the crown court, no more than 25% of those lead to jury trials. Even if, as estimated, the number of jury trials would fall by ¼ to ½ of current numbers, you can see how small a percentage this represents. The Institute for Government correctly describes the potential outcome as ‘a very marginal gain’.”

“At the same time, the proposed new regime also depends upon more cases being heard in the magistrates court, with magistrates given increased sentencing powers. No explanation has been provided as to how the magistrates courts will cope with increased case numbers – despite erroneous government claims, the magistrates court backlog is also out of control – over 360,000 in mid 2025 – and growing – and we see no additional resources, personnel or infrastructure allocated. Previous increases in magistrates’ sentencing powers had little impact on overall efficiency.”

Additional media

The Guardian – Judge-only trials in England and Wales will not wipe out crown court backlog, report says

Institute for Government – Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand

Institute for Government – David Lammy’s proposals for judge-only trials would make England and Wales an outlier

The Bar Council – Four Bars joint statement on jury trials in England and Wales

Manchester Evening News – ‘There’s no dispute that we’ve got an emergency, but this isn’t the answer’

For further information, please contact Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk