UK Scraps Plan to Cut Jury Trials as Court Backlog Hits 81,000

 

The British government has abandoned controversial plans to cut jury trials in England and Wales, in a significant U-turn announced over the weekend. The decision preserves the centuries-old right to be judged by twelve of your peers, even as the country's Crown Court backlog climbs to a record of nearly 81,000 cases.

A jury box in an English courtroom. Ministers have abandoned controversial plans to replace juries with judge-only trials for many offences. (Photo: The Guardian)

A Radical Proposal Born From A Record Backlog

The jury-trial plans came from Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, a landmark study commissioned to confront one of the most serious crises in the English justice system. Leveson's review contained 180 recommendations, including controversial proposals to shift some cases out of jury sittings and into judge-only trials.

The idea was advanced under the previous Labour government by former Justice Secretary David Lammy, who saw it as a way to chip away at an open caseload that hit a series peak of 80,829 at the end of June 2026 — up 392 on the previous quarter, according to official figures reported by the Law Gazette. Without intervention, experts project the backlog could reach 100,000 cases.

Nearly a third of those stuck in the queue have been waiting for a year or longer, and the human cost is mounting. Ministers acknowledge that victims wait years for justice while witnesses disengage and memories fade. Leveson himself warned in a speech earlier this year that in a system this slow, confidence falls away, witnesses disengage, and some defendants even "game the system" in the hope their cases collapse under their own weight.

Lawyers And Judges Fought The Plan

From the moment the jury-trial curbs were floated, opposition was fierce. The legal profession argued that trial by jury is a cornerstone of democracy, an 800-year-old right stretching back to Magna Carta, and that removing it would erode trust in the justice system itself.

Critics made a powerful counter-argument: the delays are caused by years of underinvestment and neglect, not by juries. They pointed to overflowing court lists, crumbling courtrooms, too few sitting days and a shortage of legal-aid lawyers as the real culprits. Senior members of the judiciary also expressed concerns, including potential security risks for judges who would sit alone in high-profile cases.

Campaign groups joined the outcry, and MPs across party lines voiced alarm. Under mounting pressure, the new Justice Secretary moved to kill the proposal. Under the revised plan, judge-only trials will be kept only for some long, complex fraud and financial cases — a narrow exception rather than the broad shift originally envisaged.

The Government's New Plan: AI, Virtual Hearings And More Sitting Days

With the jury plans scrapped, ministers say they will now attack the backlog through faster efficiency measures instead. Announcing changes to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which returns to Parliament later this month, the government said it would start reform work far earlier than originally planned.

Minister for Courts and Legal Services Sarah Sackman KC said the government would use "every lever" it has: "Whether that is using AI to support the listing of cases, rolling out further virtual hearings, or taking steps to ensure defendants arrive to court on time, we will turn the tide and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve."

The technology strand comes straight from Leveson's review, where 31 of the 180 recommendations focused on tech and AI as enablers of reform. But Leveson himself has been careful to set boundaries: AI should "augment human decision-making, not replace it," he said, insisting on tight safeguards rather than unfettered automation.

Other measures already under way include specialist rape courts, lifting the financial cap on Crown Court sitting days, and extra funding for criminal legal aid. The government has also pledged record investment in the courts system, and announced a statutory commitment to examine how structural reforms affect ethnic minorities and people of different backgrounds, led by an independent reviewer.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," Sackman said. "I remain committed to structural reform which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog."

The Old Bailey in London, England's most famous criminal court, where serious cases are heard before a jury.

What This Means

The U-turn is a clear victory for the legal profession and jury-trial campaigners, who see it as proof that some rights are too fundamental to trade away for speed. The right to be tried by twelve ordinary citizens remains, in the government's own words, a historic pillar of justice in England and Wales.

But the relief comes with a warning. The victims' commissioner has expressed concern that abandoning the judge-only trial measures could leave victims waiting even longer for justice. And legal organisations, while welcoming the reversal, caution that increasing magistrates' sentencing powers — another part of the reform package — could simply push more work onto magistrates' courts, which are already developing their own backlog.

Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, voiced worry about proposals to hand more sentencing power to judges and magistrates without fixing the underlying capacity problem. Campaigners argue the government must now match the reversal with real investment: more courtroom sitting time, more judges, and measures that address the root causes of delay rather than rearranging who hears each case.

There is also the uncomfortable arithmetic. Government guidance notes that magistrates' courts already deal with "triable either way" offences more than four times faster than the Crown Court. Shifting cases down the system may ease the Crown Court queue — but only if the lower courts can absorb the pressure.

The statue of Justice above the Old Bailey. Ministers say justice reform must now come from efficiency and investment, not cutting jury rights.

What Happens Next

The Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to Parliament later this month, and the government says amendments made now will let reform work begin far earlier. Leveson's full response — his 180 recommendations — will shape the debate, alongside the government's response to his report.

Ministers have promised a statutory commitment to consider the impact of reforms on ethnic minorities and people of different backgrounds, with an independent reviewer leading that assessment — a recognition that efficiency reforms can have unequal effects.

The test, however, will be in the numbers. The open caseload stood at a record 80,829 at the end of June and keeps climbing. Ministers say they are acting "on all fronts" — record investment, new technology, and faster justice for victims. But lawyers and campaigners will be watching whether the money and capacity actually arrive, or whether the scrapping of jury reforms leaves the backlog to keep rising on its own.

For now, the ancient right to a jury trial survives. In a justice system under more strain than at any point in living memory, that counts as the most significant legal decision of the year.