Sean Gould
A major shift is underway in the criminal justice system of England and Wales, one that could permanently change how many offences are tried. Under new government proposals, jury trials for lesser crimes – most specifically those likely to result in a sentence of under three years – would be removed entirely. Instead of being heard by twelve randomly chosen peers, these cases would be decided by judges sitting alone.
This development represents far more than a procedural tweak.
For centuries, jury trials have been seen as a cornerstone of British justice, embodying transparency, fairness and community participation. The idea that everyday citizens sit in judgment of their peers is deeply rooted in the national legal identity. By removing jury trials for lesser crimes, fundamental questions about efficiency, accountability, cost and the future shape of justice in the UK have been well and truly pushed to the surface.
Historic context but a modern challenge
Traditionally, jury trials have been reserved for more serious offences. However, a substantial number of mid-level cases still qualified for the process. Supporters of the new proposals argue that the world has changed massively; court backlogs are growing, trial delays are stretching into years and the UK court system is struggling under pressure.
Opponents have countered that convenience should never outweigh democratic safeguards, and that the loss of juries – even in lower-level cases – risks eroding a key civic protection.
As the conversation around jury trials for lesser crimes intensifies, two strongly opposed narratives are emerging.
The case for removing jury trials for lesser crimes
Proponents of the reform argue that the justice system has reached a bottleneck, and that judge-only trials offer a practical and necessary solution.
The first and most persuasive point they raise is efficiency. Jury trials require careful scheduling, multiple court staff in addition to time-consuming selection processes. Replacing them with judge-only hearings could dramatically reduce delays which should, it is argued, lead to quicker outcomes for both victims and defendants. In an era where justice delayed often means justice denied, this argument has carried significant weight during the deliberation around the proposal.
Cost is another factor driving the argument for change. Maintaining juries is expensive in terms of summoning citizens, compensating lost earnings, providing accommodation in longer cases, and supporting the logistical structure around them. If jury trials for lesser crimes are largely replaced, supporters believe millions of pounds could be saved and reinvested into areas of the system that are currently damagingly underfunded.
There is also a belief that judge-only trials may deliver more consistent verdicts. Judges are extensively trained to weigh evidence impartially and are less likely to be influenced by emotional arguments or misconceptions about the law. Lesser offences also often involving technical or procedural questions which means a legally trained decision-maker may provide greater accuracy and clarity.
Finally, some argue that reducing the number of juries protects citizens themselves. Jury service can be disruptive, stressful and demanding. Reserving juries for only the most serious crimes ensures that when citizens do serve, their time is spent on cases where their contribution is most impactful.
The case against removing jury trials for lesser crimes
On the opposite side of the debate are those who see the proposal as a deeply troubling erosion of civil liberties. For them, the issue goes beyond cost or convenience and touches the core of democratic justice. Juries bring the voice of the community into the courtroom. Juries ensure that justice is not monopolised by the state or the judiciary. Removing jury trials for lesser crimes therefore reduces public oversight and concentrates power in the hands of a small, professional group in the opponents’ minds.
Critics also warn of a dangerous slippery slope. If juries can be removed for crimes carrying sentences under three years today, what prevents future governments from raising that threshold? The fear is that jury trials could gradually be phased out, turning a once exceptional measure into the ‘new normal’.
There is also the question of trust. Defendants may feel more confident in a system where their fate is determined by their peers, not solely by authority figures. Public faith in verdicts could weaken if decisions begin to happen behind closed doors rather than in open court with a representative cross-section of the community.
Perhaps most importantly, juries bring real-world experience and common-sense judgment that cannot be replicated by professional judges. Community-focused values like empathy, local insight, diverse perspectives all play a role in shaping how society defines guilt and innocence. Removing jury trials for lesser crimes risks losing this rich and democratic dimension of justice.
Is removing jury trials for lesser crimes a turning point in the future of justice?
The debate over jury trials for lesser crimes is ultimately about what kind of justice system the country wants. Should the priority be efficiency, speed and reduced cost? Or should it be the preservation of a long-standing system that does – largely at least – work even if the participation of a jury does slow the system down?
Whichever path is taken, the implications will be profound. This proposal represents a pivotal rethinking of what it means for justice to be fair, transparent, and rooted in the community.
As barristers, this decision will naturally have an enormous impact on our working lives and the lives of our lay clients. As such we will be following these developments closely. However, if this blog has raised any questions, please contact our clerks who will put you in touch with the best qualified lawyer.
For specialist support with website design, development and digital presence, please visit the Simdure website team.