Jury trials have been in the spotlight since December 2025 when David Lammey announced plans to abolish them for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years.
That applies to crimes like theft, domestic abuse offences, and actual bodily harm.
On 10 March 2026, MPs voted to allow a bill to push the plans forward, so it looks as though it is going ahead, despite dissent from some MPs.
So the question is: should we get rid of jury trials?
In our view, no. Here are some of the reasons why we think that the criminal justice system should retain jury trials.
Why the change?
Before we dive into our reasons to oppose the plans, let’s have a look at the reasons why the plans are proposed in the first place.
It’s no secret that there’s a huge backlog in the justice system, specifically there is a record backlog of cases in the Crown Court. Some rape victims have waited almost three years to have their case heard in court. It’s reported that the backlog is currently around 80,000 cases.
The Government plans to tackle the backlog by a number of reforms, one of which includes abolishing jury trials for less serious crimes.
Magistrates will be given more powers and they will be able to hear cases that have a maximum sentence range of up to 18 months.
The idea is that this will free up thousands of hearing days in the Crown Courts for more serious cases to be heard.
What are the problems with the plans?
We can see a few problems with the proposal to get rid of jury trials.
Removing a vital check on state power
Jury trials are seen as a cornerstone of a free, democratic society. They allow for justice to be administered by peers rather than the state. In this sense, the jury is a “wheel of the constitution”, ensuring the separation of powers that is a hallmark of our society.
Risk of increased appeals
Fewer jury trials means more judge-only trials. Unlike juries, judges have to give reasons for their verdicts. It takes time for judges to write their reasoning, so this could in fact slow up the process. Not only that, but it increases the risk of appeals, as judgments become subject to close scrutiny.
Risk of discrimination and equality
Juries bring real-world experience and diverse perspectives from 12 people. This means that a greater cross-section of society has a say in administering justice.
Judges tend to be white, middle case, and 50+. We are not suggesting that judges are inherently prejudiced, but a lack of diversity in the judiciary could lead to unconscious bias.
Risk of waning public confidence
Jury service is seen as an important civic duty that increases trust in the legal system. Without them, transparency in the system weakens.
The plans won’t fix the problem
Finally, there is no evidence that the proposal to abolish jury trials will actually fix the problem of the backlog.
The Bar Council has suggested different reforms to reduce cases coming to trial. One suggestion is that first-time low level offenders would not face trial or prison. Instead, they would be ordered to pay compensation, go to rehab, or begin education or vocational training.
There appears to be a widespread consensus in the legal community that it is not juries that have not caused the crisis in the criminal justice system. Therefore, abolishing jury trials won’t fix the problems. There must be another way.
