Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The UK government is expected to scale back proposals from the justice secretary to end the right to a jury trial in England and Wales, after judges and barristers expressed outrage over the reforms.
While the government is still looking at ending jury trials for many offences, in a bid to curb the huge backlog of criminal cases in the courts, the reforms are likely to be less far-reaching than David Lammy mooted, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
Under the proposals set out by Lammy in a memo to government departments this week, and seen by the Financial Times, the justice secretary said juries should be scrapped for cases expected to attract a prison sentence of five years or less.
This went beyond a government-commissioned independent review that in July recommended non-jury trials in cases likely to receive a maximum sentence of three years.
The government is now expected to push forward with reforms that are closer to those set out in the independent review, carried out by retired High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson, according to one of the people. Leveson’s review also recommended judge-only trials for serious and complex fraud offences.
Barristers and judges have been up in arms over the proposals from both Lammy and Leveson, criticising the reforms as eroding the justice system.
“[This is] utterly horrendous. We will lose the confidence of our communities that have confidence and therefore participate in the justice system,” said one criminal judge of Lammy’s proposals. “As judges, our decisions won’t ever please everyone and there will be press attacks on any verdict disagreed with.”
Courts minister Sarah Sackman told parliament on Thursday that the government was planning to respond to Leveson’s proposals “very soon”, adding that “the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition”.
Courts in England and Wales are in crisis amid a growing backlog of criminal cases created by a lack of funding, crumbling court buildings, staff shortages and delays from the Covid-19 pandemic. Even short trials are now being scheduled for 2029 because of a lack of capacity, leading to problems with victim and witness participation.
Pointing to long delays of up to four years for trials, Sackman argued: “The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness.”
She added: “The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly, fairly, by magistrates with no jury.”
Lammy’s proposals include keeping juries for trials involving rape, murder or manslaughter, or where there is a special public interest element.
The Ministry of Justice said: “No final decision has been taken by government. We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims — with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising — which will require bold action to put right.”
Brian Altman KC, a barrister who has advised the government on a number of high-profile cases, said that while some judges may welcome the shift, such changes would also be costly.
“All of this will require comprehensive retraining of both the full and part-time judges sitting in crime which will take a good deal of time and money,” said Altman. “Will it reduce the backlog any time soon? I’m not convinced.”
Leveson is due to publish the second part of his review, looking at court processes and the use of technology, by the end of the year.