London, December 06, 2025
David Lammy’s proposal to end jury trials for many criminal cases in England and Wales has drawn strong criticism from within his own Labour Party, igniting a debate over justice reform. The plan aims to reduce severe court backlogs by replacing many jury trials with judge-only hearings but faces opposition for potentially undermining the fairness of the legal process.
Details of the Proposal and Opposition
The UK Justice Secretary, David Lammy, has put forward a plan to scrap jury trials for “either-way” offenses—crimes that can presently be tried either in magistrates’ courts or before a jury in Crown Courts. Under this system, such cases would instead be decided by a single judge in a newly proposed “swift court.” The main goal is to tackle a massive backlog of about 78,000 cases causing delays that extend to 2029.
However, the proposal has been sharply opposed by Labour MPs and peers, who warn it is a “massive mistake” that could diminish public participation in the criminal justice system. Critics argue that removing ordinary citizens from the role of jurors risks increasing miscarriages of justice and eroding public confidence, given that juries have long served as a fundamental safeguard in the UK legal tradition.
Scope and Intended Effects
Currently, only around 3% of the approximately 1.3 million prosecutions annually go to trial. Lammy’s plan would cut jury trials by about 25%, shifting many cases to magistrates’ courts with enhanced sentencing powers to deal with a broader array of criminal matters without juries. The envisioned “swift court” aims at expediting justice by having professional judges render decisions more swiftly than the existing system permits.
Background: System Backlogs and Delays
The criminal justice system in England and Wales is burdened with delays and backlogs that have worsened significantly in recent years. With trials often deferred for years, defendants wait an excessively long time to have their cases heard, undermining both the accused’s rights and the public’s trust in the system’s efficiency. Reform proponents see Lammy’s plans as an urgent measure to alleviate this crisis.
Concerns over Democratic Principles and Safeguards
Opponents highlight the democratic principle of trial by peers, emphasizing that lay jurors bring diverse perspectives and community values into judicial decision-making. Replacing juries with judge-only trials, especially in complex cases such as fraud, is seen as shifting the balance of power wholly to the judiciary, potentially endangering impartiality and fairness. Some critics point out that this approach resembles models found in continental European countries, marking a significant shift from the UK’s historical reliance on jury trials.
Implications for the UK Justice System
Lammy’s proposals underscore the tension between the necessity to expedite justice and uphold civic participation in legal processes. As policymakers and legal experts debate the appropriateness of abolishing juries in many cases, the reforms stand to reshape the foundational aspects of the English legal tradition. The ultimate impact of these changes on justice delivery and public confidence will be closely watched in the months ahead.