Lammy plan would curb jury trials to cut backlog
Ministers in England and Wales are weighing a plan to reserve juries for only the gravest crimes - murder, manslaughter, rape - or where a judge rules there is a clear public interest. Most other cases that currently go to the Crown Court would be decided by a judge sitting alone. Early reporting by the Financial Times and The Times set out the broad shape of the proposal on Tuesday 25 November 2025.
The Ministry of Justice has not made a final decision. BBC News obtained an internal briefing suggesting David Lammy, now Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, has begun the Whitehall “write‑round” to secure sign‑off ahead of a formal announcement. Officials say any change would apply only in England and Wales.
Why this, and why now? Crown Court backlogs are at record levels. The MoJ’s own update this autumn put the waiting list at 78,329 cases, with victims often waiting years. Reuters has reported trial dates being listed as far out as 2029. Ministers argue speeding up trials is essential for fairness.
What would practically change for you if you were a defendant or witness in an either‑way case? A new judge‑only tier inside the Crown Court is being considered to hear offences likely to attract sentences of up to five years. Juries would remain for homicide and rape; a judge could also order a jury where there is strong public interest.
This goes further than the options floated by retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson in his government‑commissioned review. Leveson suggested a “Crown Court Bench Division” where some cases would be heard by a Crown Court judge with two magistrates, typically those likely to receive sentences of around three years or less, and proposed restricting the right to elect a jury for offences capped at two years. Lammy’s version removes the magistrates and raises the sentencing ceiling.
The leaked presentation also points to judge‑only trials for complex frauds and financial crimes where a judge decides the case is especially technical or lengthy. That carve‑out would sit alongside guaranteed juries for murder, manslaughter and rape, plus a discretionary “public interest” test.
A quick legal explainer for class: in England and Wales there is a strong tradition of trial by jury, but there is no human right to a jury under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Parliament can, by statute, change when juries are used, provided fair‑trial standards are met. That position has been set out by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and in legal commentary.
It’s also important to know where this does and does not apply. These proposals cover England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different court systems and are not included in the government’s current thinking.
Ministers frame this as a victims‑first move: more sitting days, quicker listings and fewer collapses caused by delay. The MoJ says bluntly that there is a crisis in the courts and insists any reforms would respect the right to a fair trial. But it also stresses, again, that no final decision has been taken.
Critics are alarmed. Riel Karmy‑Jones KC, who chairs the Criminal Bar Association, told BBC journalists the plan “simply won’t work” and warned it would damage a system built over centuries. The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch argues juries keep “ordinary men and women” in the process, while the Liberal Democrats call the idea “disgraceful”. These are strong claims, and they’ll shape the debate you hear next.
What happens next matters for timelines you may study in civics or law. According to the briefing seen by BBC News, ministers want to complete the write‑round now, signal the direction of travel in December, and table legislation early in the New Year. Any change would still need full parliamentary scrutiny.
You might be wondering what an “either‑way” offence is. It’s a charge that can be tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court depending on seriousness and complexity; examples range in maximum sentences from two to five years. Today many defendants can elect jury trial; under the mooted plan, far fewer would have that choice.
For the classroom or common room, the key question is balance. We all want victims to see timely justice, and we also want checks and public participation when the state prosecutes. As this proposal moves from leak to bill, keep an eye on three tests: does it actually cut delay; is “public interest” defined clearly and applied fairly; and does it protect confidence across all communities? Watching those tests - with sources in hand - is good media literacy in action.