“Jury trial is often described as a fundamental right in a democratic society. The idea that people have the right to trial by their peers is deeply embedded in some legal thinking.
“However, the current backlogs in the criminal justice system have prompted proposals to limit the number of cases that go before juries. Sir Brian Leveson suggested reducing jury trials, and the Government was poised to go further by reserving them only for the most serious cases.
“In his recent statement on the criminal courts, David Lammy announced that jury trials would only be available in cases where the expected sentence is more than three years. This is closer to Leveson’s original proposal. But instead of using a new Crown Court Bench made up of a judge and two lay magistrates, these cases will now be heard by a judge alone in new ‘swift courts’. These courts are expected to process cases about 20% faster than traditional judge-and-jury trials.
“The proposals also include expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers from a maximum of one year to eighteen months, or even two years if required. This marks a significant increase in the responsibilities of lay magistrates, who already handle most criminal cases.
“Under the reforms, defendants in ‘either-way’ cases will no longer have the right to choose a jury trial. Instead, magistrates and judges will decide whether such cases go before a jury. Long and complex fraud cases will also be removed from jury trial and heard by a judge alone.
“All these changes aim to reduce the Crown Court backlog of almost 80,000 cases - a number expected to rise to 100,000 by 2028. But do these reforms erode the right to a fair trial? The answer is not straightforward. Magna Carta never guaranteed the right to trial by jury, and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair trial, not trial by jury.
“We also know very little about what actually happens inside jury deliberations because the law restricts direct research. Some high-profile appeals have raised concerns, especially in the internet age, where jurors can easily access information online despite being instructed not to. Mock-jury studies also show that myths and stereotypes can sometimes influence verdicts.
“One could argue that using lay magistrates as part of a Crown Court Bench would still preserve an element of ‘trial by peers’, helping maintain democratic values. However, government research shows that magistrates are less representative of the general population than jury members. As a result, practicality may take priority over principle when less serious cases are moved away from juries.
“While jury bias is a valid concern, it is important not to overlook the possibility of judicial bias - especially if judges tend to be more conviction-minded than jurors. This complicates the debate over whether reducing jury trials strengthens or undermines justice.”
ENDS
For further comments from Professor Mandy Burton or interview requests, email the PR team or call 01509 222224.