The UK criminal justice system is at a critical crossroads. As delays, backlogs, and underfunding plague our courts, conversations around reform are intensifying — and not always for the better. Among the suggestions stemming from the Leveson Report on criminal justice reform is the idea of expanding Intermediate Courts and limiting access to jury trials.

This would be a grave mistake.

While calls for streamlining the system are understandable — especially in the face of chronic delays and case backlogs — some of the proposed solutions risk undermining the very foundations of our justice system.

The role of jury trials in the UK criminal justice system

One of the most troubling suggestions has been the expansion of so-called Intermediate Courts, with the implicit (or sometimes explicit) consequence of reducing access to jury trials. This should alarm anyone who believes in open, fair, and democratic justice.

Our jury system is not just a procedural formality — it is central and pivotal to how justice is done in this country. It is the only aspect of our criminal justice process where the public plays a direct and decisive role. At a time when the judiciary continues to lack meaningful diversity, juries bring a richness of background, perspective, and life experience that no single judge, however well-meaning, can replicate.

To be tried by one’s peers is a right, not a privilege. It is a safeguard against state power, against overreach, and against injustice. It should not be diluted or removed in any way, shape or form.

It’s important to remember that the majority of criminal cases already begin and end in the magistrates’ court, without the involvement of a jury. The small percentage that make it to Crown Court deserve the scrutiny, independence, and fairness that juries provide. These are often the most serious matters — where consequences are life-altering and the stakes are highest.

The Problem with Intermediate Courts

The proposed Intermediate Courts will not resolve the system’s backlog. Shifting work from one part of a broken system to another is not reform — it’s reshuffling. It doesn’t deal with the chronic underfunding of legal aid, the shortage of judges, the crumbling court infrastructure, or the exodus of skilled practitioners from criminal defence due to unsustainable working conditions.

In fact, reducing jury trials could worsen the problems we already face. Fewer juries will likely mean more convictions — and quite possibly, more wrongful convictions. This will only increase the pressure on an already overstretched prison system, raising further ethical and practical concerns.

We must ask: Is this really the solution we want? Or is it a shortcut that sacrifices principle for convenience?

Real criminal justice reform requires real investment

Meaningful reform of the UK criminal justice system requires more than structural reshuffling — it demands serious investment. For too long, the system has been running on empty: overworked court staff, ageing infrastructure, exhausted legal professionals, and legal aid so stretched that many defendants struggle to access proper representation.

We need a justice system where:

• Courts are fully operational, with functioning buildings, up-to-date technology, and enough judges and staff to handle the workload.
• Defendants have timely access to expert legal representation, regardless of their background or income.
• Delays are minimised, ensuring that justice is both swift and fair — not left to languish for months or even years in a backlog.

The principle that “justice delayed is justice denied” is not just a cliché — it’s the lived reality for too many victims, defendants, and families across the UK. The backlog in criminal courts continues to grow, and rather than addressing the causes — chronic underfunding, staff shortages, and inadequate legal aid — we’re seeing proposals to remove or restrict one of the few things still working: the jury system.

Let’s be clear: the jury system is not the problem. If anything, it is a rare example of a process that continues to uphold fairness, transparency, and public trust. It allows for decisions to be made by ordinary people, not just career legal professionals — which is especially crucial in a system where judicial diversity remains limited.

Undermining jury trials would be a profound mistake. It risks compromising the integrity of our justice system in favour of short-term administrative convenience.

The right to be tried by a jury of your peers must be protected, not sidelined. If we want real justice, we must be willing to pay for it.

Managing Director Manisha Knights was asked by the BBC News for her thoughts

“With juries comes diversity whereas the judiciary still very much lacks it. The right to be tried by one’s peers should not be removed or be diluted in any way, shape or form.”

You can see the full BBC article here

Casey Jenkins President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA)

“Many of the recommendations in Sir Brian’s detailed report are welcome, such as the recommendation for increased use of diversion and early engagement, but any reduction in the right to trial by jury is extremely concerning. It is widely recognised that the judiciary lacks diversity. Trial by jury protects citizens from professional judicial decision making and any reduction in the right to trial by jury risks worsened outcomes for minoritised individuals, including minority ethnic communities, women, and individuals from deprived socio-economic environments.  The introduction of a Crown Court Bench Division is the wrong response to a problem not caused by proper exercise of fair trial rights but by inefficiencies and resource issues.”