What does the market say about restricting trial by jury in the UK?

The proposals around jury trials have been a topic of considerable interest among interviewees for the Crime sections of the Chambers UK Guide 2027 and UK Bar Guide 2027. By restricting the right to jury trial in a number of circumstances, the government hopes to improve the critical backlog of cases in the criminal justice system. But the measure contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which recently passed second reading, has proven controversial – both in terms of its likely impact on the backlog, and its broader implications for the administration of justice.

The move is a version of one of the recommendations put forward by Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, and framed as a way to tackle the immense backlog of cases pending in the courts. The figures have spiralled since the pandemic, recently topping 80,000 outstanding cases in the Crown courts.

With some active cases now listed for trial as far away as 2029, victims of crime are left waiting for justice, if not withdrawing from the pursuit of it altogether, while defendants also face significant periods of uncertainty.  As one respondent to our research said, “It costs people money to instruct lawyers to represent them, [and] while a case is hanging over them it's affecting them professionally and personally”.

Although criminal law practitioners reported plenty of work, the backlog has its own negative impacts on certain segments of the legal profession. Sources mentioned that delays create cash-flow problems for solicitors dependent on legal aid work, for example, while criminal barristers also speak of growing workload pressure as caseloads pile up and personnel dwindle.

Framed as a way to ameliorate these delays, the proposal to limit access to jury trials in the UK has frequently been justified with reference to the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied”. However, some opponents argue passionately that the idea undermines the right to justice more than it favours it.  One critical open letter on behalf of dozens of organisations in the Violence Against Women and Girls sector, for instance, describes jury trials as “a democratic safeguard” and “a vital connection between society and the law”.

Many of our respondents were also passionately critical of the measure’s potential impact on judicial fairness. A number of interviewees found irony in it being spearheaded by a Home Secretary whose 2017 Lammy Review into the experiences of BAME individuals in the criminal justice system emphasised the importance of juries in protecting the principle of impartial justice. One source feared that proposals opened the door to greater scrutiny of individual judges’ conviction and acquittal rates, with the potential to influence subsequent judgements.

Criminal barrister, UK

Meanwhile, the jury is out, so to speak, on whether the proposal will actually have the desired impact on the backlog. At worst, respondents regarded it as “political grandstanding which will have absolutely no impact whatsoever.” Some interviewees, on the other hand, did support measures to put more defendants in front of magistrates rather than juries, such as expanding the number of summary offences, or greater scrutiny of CPS charging guidance.

One interviewee argued that the measure would save time as trials run smoother, with  less time needed to explain evidence and arguments. However, the Institute for Government has pointed out that efficiency gains may be offset by the lower income threshold for legal aid in magistrates’ courts, meaning a likely rise in inexperienced defendants representing themselves.

Various sources also pointed out that, in practice, the period that juries spend deliberating is often time that judges spend writing judgments and doing other tasks. With more cases meaning more reasons to write, they predicted that this would eat significantly into any potential time savings – as well as putting greater pressure on judges, with the possibility of this leading to further judiciary shortages.

When it came to understanding the backlog, inadequate funding and resources was a common theme – whether in the CPS, or the courts themselves, or in the police, or in the prison and probation service which is responsible, for example, for delivering prisoners to court in a timely manner; all create and exacerbate delays in the system.

Criminal barrister, UK

Sources also repeatedly mentioned the need to uncap sitting days – an issue associated with the funding question, and one which the government has recently sought to address – and have “all courts working at full steam all the time”.

Numerous interviewees pointed to the innovative approach deployed with notable success at Liverpool Crown Court. By identifying the specific profile of cases more likely to disrupt court timetables with last-minute guilty pleas and deploying a combination of judicial triage and meaningful collaboration among stakeholders, the court has brought wait times well below the national average.

For independent, rigorous and trusted research revealing the best criminal lawyers and law firms, explore the Chambers UK Guide.

View rankings