header-logo header-logo

26 November 2025
Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Jury trials under threat

The legal profession's leaders have mounted a robust defence of trial by jury, following reports that Justice Secretary David Lammy is considering restricting it to rape, murder, manslaughter and other cases that are in the public interest

The BBC reported this week on an internal government briefing containing plans to create an extra tier of judge-only courts in England and Wales that would cover crimes attracting sentences of up to five years. It would handle most crimes currently heard before a jury. Lammy’s intention is to speed up cases, cutting the unprecedented backlog of 78,000 Crown Court criminal cases, currently unlikely to be heard until 2029 or 2030.

The Ministry of Justice says no decision has been taken by the government.

However, Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘This extreme measure on jury trials goes far beyond the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent report.’

In July, Lord Leveson's Independent Review of the Criminal Courts proposed creating an extra tier of judge-only court, the Crown Court Bench Division, hearing cases where defendants could be sentenced to up to three years in prison.

Evans said: ‘We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs.

‘The Leveson proposals were an uncomfortable compromise, only justifiable given the extensive challenges our justice system faces. To go beyond Leveson’s proposals is a step too far.’

In an impassioned blogpost on the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) website this week, prior to the BBC report, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, CBA chair, said: ‘Jury trial, in place for hundreds of serious offences, is a right which has been applauded and emulated by other nations.

‘Juries are trusted by ordinary working people—the very people this government repeatedly and pointedly professes to care for, to represent and to keep safe from harm.’

Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll