header-logo header-logo

26 November 2025
Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Jury trials under threat

The legal profession's leaders have mounted a robust defence of trial by jury, following reports that Justice Secretary David Lammy is considering restricting it to rape, murder, manslaughter and other cases that are in the public interest

The BBC reported this week on an internal government briefing containing plans to create an extra tier of judge-only courts in England and Wales that would cover crimes attracting sentences of up to five years. It would handle most crimes currently heard before a jury. Lammy’s intention is to speed up cases, cutting the unprecedented backlog of 78,000 Crown Court criminal cases, currently unlikely to be heard until 2029 or 2030.

The Ministry of Justice says no decision has been taken by the government.

However, Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘This extreme measure on jury trials goes far beyond the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent report.’

In July, Lord Leveson's Independent Review of the Criminal Courts proposed creating an extra tier of judge-only court, the Crown Court Bench Division, hearing cases where defendants could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

Evans said: ‘We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs.

‘The Leveson proposals were an uncomfortable compromise, only justifiable given the extensive challenges our justice system faces. To go beyond Leveson’s proposals is a step too far.’

In an impassioned blogpost on the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) website this week, prior to the BBC report, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, CBA chair, said: ‘Jury trial, in place for hundreds of serious offences, is a right which has been applauded and emulated by other nations.

‘Juries are trusted by ordinary working people—the very people this government repeatedly and pointedly professes to care for, to represent and to keep safe from harm.’

Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll