The scrapping of jury trials: balancing fairness with efficiency in an overwhelmed judicial system

By Will Gibson

It’s no secret that the UK judicial system is under immense pressure. Cases are entering the system faster than they can be heard, and it’s clear that something must be done to address the seemingly endless backlog of cases awaiting judgment. The BBC notes delays caused by too few prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges and available courtrooms, with over 78,000 cases waiting to be heard in England and Wales alone, and projections suggesting the number could reach 100,000 by 2028. Many blame the pandemic and the previous Conservative government for the backlog, arguing that the courts have been severely underfunded and simply lack the capacity to process cases under the current system. However, this raises the question: is scrapping jury trials a necessary measure, or can more be done to relieve the backlog? 

Presenting to the House of Commons, Justice Secretary David Lammy has proposed scrapping trial by jury for crimes that carry a sentence of less than three years, instead introducing “swift courts” to help address the crisis. Courts will be given greater powers to decide how cases are heard in ‘either-way’ offences, where defendants can currently choose whether to be tried by jury or by magistrates. Magistrates will also gain greater sentencing powers, being able to hand down sentences of up to 18 months – an increase from the current 12-month limit. Particularly technical and lengthy cases involving financial crime or fraud will now be tried by a judge alone, as the value of a jury is seen as disproportionate to the time and complex understanding these cases demand. These reforms are based on a review from former High Court Justice Sir Bryan Levson, who initially suggested ending jury trials for crimes attracting 5-year sentences. Whilst not as radical as initially suggested, Lammy argues that these reforms are necessary to reduce the backlog, estimating that judge-only trials could take 20% less time than jury trials. However, many argue that Lammy is failing to address the deeper problems that have contributed to the system’s inefficiency. Severe underfunding, outdated systems and crumbling court buildings remain serious concerns that are largely unaddressed by the government’s proposals.

Juries add immense value by showing how ordinary people interpret justice and removing them for the sake of efficiency risks undermining both the legitimacy and fairness of the judicial process.  

Trial by jury has been a cornerstone of the British justice system since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the right to be tried by one’s peers. Juries protect defendants and ensure that charges are evaluated fairly before sentencing. While countries such as Germany and France do not commonly use juries, they remain a longstanding pillar of justice in the UK, and the decision to remove them is not one taken lightly. Their presence protects against technocratic influence in the judicial system and ensures the public has a direct role in delivering justice. Although judges are professional and knowledgeable, they typically come from predominantly white and privately educated backgrounds and cannot always fully set aside personal biases. As noted in Lammy’s own 2017 review, the presence of a jury acts as a ‘filter for prejudice’, giving voice to a more diverse panel with broader life experience. A jury can provide a wider, more intersectional understanding of why someone may commit a crime and what sentencing is appropriate. Scrapping jury trials for many offences therefore poses a significant risk by allowing justice to become more technocratic and less representative. 

It appears that the government’s approach is to fast-track cases through the system rather than address the severe underfunding and structural issues that created the backlog in the first place. Juries are able to see the broader context of cases and understand the circumstances surrounding a crime beyond its legal definition. For example, in the 2021 case involving Extinction Rebellion activists who obstructed a DLR train, five protesters were acquitted by a jury on the basis that their actions constituted a lawful protest against government inaction. Juries add immense value by showing how ordinary people interpret justice and removing them for the sake of efficiency risks undermining both the legitimacy and fairness of the judicial process. 

The Labour government has made it clear that it has inherited a dire situation, with many public services at breaking point and in need of major reform. However, increasingly it seems that the government is more focused on administering swift justice to alleviate pressure on the system than on addressing the deeper, long-standing issues causing many of its problems.  

Image: rawpixel.com