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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll