Jury Trial Restrictions Will Deliver Only 'Modest' Impact on Court Backlog
Justice Secretary David Lammy's controversial proposal to restrict jury trials will achieve only relatively modest reductions in demand despite requiring significant institutional upheaval, according to a comprehensive new report from the Institute for Government (IFG).
Limited Time Savings Despite Major Changes
The government's leaked plans from November revealed intentions to scrap certain jury trials as part of efforts to tackle the nearly 80,000 criminal case backlog currently overwhelming the system. Lammy confirmed the strategy in December, citing research suggesting this approach could deliver justice at least 20 per cent faster than traditional jury trials.
Under the proposed reforms, appeals to Magistrates' Courts would be limited strictly to points of law to prevent further delays in the justice process. Additionally, sentencing powers in Magistrates' Courts would increase to 18 months, enabling them to handle a greater proportion of lower-level offences and thereby relieve pressure on the Crown Court system.
Institute for Government Analysis Reveals Minimal Benefits
However, today's IFG report presents a starkly different assessment, indicating that time savings from judge-only trials would be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2 per cent of Crown Court time. While the number of jury trials could potentially be reduced by almost half, the actual time saved within Crown Court proceedings is likely to be less than 10 per cent of total court hours.
Cassia Rowland, senior researcher at IFG, stated unequivocally: The government's proposed reforms to jury trials will not fix the problems in the crown court. The time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best.
Efficiency Gap and Systemic Challenges
The report highlights a significant efficiency gap within the current system, noting that the Crown Court is currently hearing almost 20 per cent fewer hours per sitting day compared to 2016/17 levels. This decline in productivity stems partly from poor infrastructure, with valuable court time wasted on basic maintenance issues including broken fire alarms and flooded courtrooms.
Rowland emphasised alternative approaches: For a bigger and faster impact on the crown court backlog, the government should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the courts to operate more efficiently.
Broader Criminal Justice System Reforms Needed
Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, echoed these concerns, stating: If the UK government is serious about tackling the appalling backlogs in the criminal courts, its focus must be on the investment and reforms that will make the most difference.
Evans further argued that to effectively reduce case volumes, the government must focus on efficiencies and investment across the entire criminal justice system, including measures to reduce reoffending rates and decrease the number of cases entering the courts initially.
Legislative Hurdles and Professional Resistance
The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking a significant multi-year digital transformation programme, with plans heavily focused on AI integration, prison security enhancements, and comprehensive court modernisation. Despite these broader initiatives, the specific proposal to reduce jury trials faces substantial legislative challenges.
The IFG report warns that the government has a fight on its hands to pass the necessary legislation, with strong resistance anticipated from judges and criminal lawyers who remain deeply sceptical about the proposed changes to trial procedures.
As the debate continues, the fundamental question remains whether restricting jury trials represents the most effective approach to addressing the chronic backlog issues plaguing the criminal justice system, or whether more comprehensive systemic reforms would deliver greater and more sustainable improvements.
