The newly announced proposal from Justice Secretary David Lammy marks a significant shift in the criminal justice landscape, with sweeping reforms to the way trials are conducted in England and Wales. Central to the announcement is a plan to restrict jury trials for a substantial category of “either-way” offences, introducing a new system of judge-only “swift courts” aimed at easing the pressure on an overburdened court system. While the intention to tackle the growing backlog is understandable, the reforms raise serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and community representation within the justice process.
Jury trials will remain available only for indictable-only offences such as murder and rape, and for either-way offences where the likely sentence exceeds three years’ imprisonment.
Why removing jury trials in Either-Way offences raises serious legal questions
Under Lammy’s proposal, defendants facing “either-way” offences with a likely custodial sentence of three years or less will no longer have the right to elect a jury trial. Instead, a Canadian-style tier of judge-only “swift courts” will hear these cases. Our concerns extend beyond the loss of the jury’s vital role. They also encompass the demographic imbalance within the judiciary itself.
As of 1 April 2024, 89.6% of court judges were white, 62% were male, and 69% were over the age of 50. This lack of diversity raises legitimate concerns about whether judge-only trials can truly reflect the communities from which defendants are drawn. The offences affected by this reform—such as drug supply, threats to kill, affray, and theft—are by no means trivial. These are serious matters, and they are precisely the types of cases in which community participation through a jury is essential.
Understanding the risks of abolishing jury trial rights for thousands of defendants
There is also a significant concern regarding evidence handling in judge-only trials. In jury trials, both prosecution and defence often discuss evidence with the judge that the jury never hears; the judge rules on admissibility to ensure the jury is not unfairly influenced by irrelevant, prejudicial, or legally impermissible material. In a judge-only trial, however, the judge would inevitably be exposed to this same inadmissible evidence while also being the sole arbiter of guilt. This raises a crucial question: how do we safeguard against unconscious prejudice when the decision-maker has already seen evidence later deemed irrelevant or unfair? Without the buffer of a jury, the risk of subconscious influence becomes significantly harder to mitigate.
Another important consideration concerns the Government’s assumption that judge-only “swift courts” will substantially reduce court time. While it is a fact that removing a jury will save some time, the crucial question is whether it will save enough time to significantly reduce the backlog. This requires far more scrutiny. It is unclear how much faster a so-called “fast-track” trial will truly be when compared with a traditional jury trial. Judges are often preparing for or working on other cases while juries are deliberating; so removing juries means this time needs to be found elsewhere. Therefore, a thorough and realistic evaluation is essential if the reforms are genuinely intended to improve the system rather than simply reduce public participation in it.
The reform also hinges on the assessment of a “likely three-year sentence,” yet there is concerning ambiguity surrounding how this determination will be made. Will decisions be taken on a case-by-case basis, or derived strictly from sentencing guidelines? Who ultimately decides what is “likely”? Such uncertainty risks inconsistent and potentially unfair outcomes at the very outset of the criminal process.
Backlogs must be fixed, but not at the expense of fairness and public trust
While the desire to create a more efficient justice system is understandable, David Lammy’s proposal risks diminishing transparency, community involvement, and public confidence. More clarity, stronger safeguards, and a broader protection of the right to jury trial are urgently required to ensure that speed does not come at the cost of justice itself.
Manisha Knights, Director
These proposals are deeply disturbing and by their very nature undermine the role played by our incredible juries all around this country. The only way to safeguard an individual from a wrongful conviction is by giving them the opportunity to be tried by their peers. I have seen what swift summary justice looks like in the Magistrates court and it can be horrifying. These proposals will inevitably result in a much higher conviction rates affecting many individuals of previous good character who will lose their jobs and become a burden on the state and increasing pressure on the already overstretched prison population.
