header-logo header-logo

05 January 2026
Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Four Bars unite to reject Lammy jury restrictions

Barristers and advocates in Scotland, England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have urged the government to drop its proposals for judge-only ‘swift courts’ in cases where the sentence is three years or less

Lord Chancellor David Lammy announced the proposal last month as part of measures to reduce the criminal cases backlog. The change, which has been widely opposed by the legal profession, would require primary legislation, and would affect courts in England and Wales only.

Under the proposals, jury trials would remain for most indictable-only offences including murder, rape, aggravated burglary, blackmail, people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offences.

A judge sitting alone with no jury would be able to hear technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences. Defendants would no longer be able to elect for trial by jury in either-way offences. Magistrates would be given enhanced powers to imprison, up from 12 months to 18 months or two years if needed.

In a joint statement issued last week, however, the Bar of Ireland joined the Bars of Northern Ireland, of England and Wales, and the Faculty of Advocates to say they ‘stand as one in opposition to this proposal’.

The four Bars stated: ‘Being tried by a jury of one’s peers is a fundamental cornerstone of the criminal justice system in our respective jurisdictions.

‘The proposal has drawn substantial and widespread criticism from legal experts and politicians from across the political spectrum. There is no evidence that this fundamental change will bring down the existing Crown Court backlog. The proposal also goes further than Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, which itself has not been piloted nor thoroughly modelled. Importantly, he alerts the Ministry of Justice to the desirability of further detailed analysis before implementation.

‘The curtailment of jury trials has predictable negative consequences, including undermining the public’s trust and confidence in our criminal justice systems... Jurors provide an accumulation of life experience which marginalises extreme or unrepresentative views and, through the majority, delivers balanced and rounded decisions on behalf of the society from which its members were drawn.’

Announcing the proposals in the House of Commons last month, the Lord Chancellor said: ‘My plan combines reform, increased investment in legal aid, sitting days and the courts to help us turn the tide on the rising backlog, deliver swifter justice and put victims first.’

He warned the Crown court backlog could hit 135,100 by 2030 if the current trajectory continues. The latest Ministry of Justice figures show the backlog reached a record high of more than 78,000 between April and June 2025.

Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
back-to-top-scroll