David Lammy Wants to Scrap Jury Trials for Thousands of Cases. The Evidence Says It Won’t Work
The UK court backlog stands at 80,000 cases. Justice Secretary David Lammy announced in early December that removing jury trials for most offences carrying sentences under three years would clear it within a decade. An Institute for Government report published this week says the plan will save less than two percent of Crown Court time. Lammy told Parliament it would deliver twenty percent faster justice. The gap between those two numbers is the story.
Chanze
- Slots package 650% up to €6.500
- Sports package 250% up to €5.000
- Weekly offers: Claim your bonus and increase your winnings!
Albion
- Level up to claim all prizes up to £30.000
- Cashback up to 45% and rakeback up to 25%
- Access to unique bonuses and exciting activities
GreatSlots
- Plus 10% Weekly Cashback on All Slots!
- 1.000s of the best slots
- VPN Friendly & 2 min registration
Britsino
- LOOTBOXES Explore Up to £10.000
- Lottery Prize pool £325 + 1.500 FS
- LOYALTY PROGRAM Rank up, Cash out!
Rollino
- VIP Levels Increase your Level and get special benefits
- Shop Exchange your Coins for free spins and Bonus Money
- 24/7 live chat
Fortunica
- Tournaments The Weekly Challenge Prize pool £2.500
- VIP Club where every bet moves you forward
- Wheel of Fortune Daily spins, instant prizes, and casino bonuses for players
- Hall of Fame Celebrate your wins - and chase the top!
WinZTER
- 250% Up to £3,500($,€) for Sport
- No ID on registration policy for fast access
Wino
- Welcome offers Slots package 600% up to €10.000
- Weekly offers Slots package450% up to €3.500
- Free access for players seeking high-limit gaming outside of national self-exclusion schemes
The reform targets what lawyers call “either-way” offences, crimes serious enough for Crown Court but not mandatory there, where the defendant currently chooses their venue. Lammy’s proposal removes that choice for offences where the likely sentence is under three years, pushing them down to Magistrates’ Courts without juries. The stated reason is pragmatic: juries take time, the backlog is real, and something has to change.
David Lammy jury reform has historical precedents, and they all involved exceptional circumstances. Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, which removed juries to prevent paramilitary intimidation of jurors, operated in wartime conditions. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allowed juryless trials where there was a specific risk of jury tampering. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 altered Scottish jury rules. Every prior weakening of the jury system in Britain happened under narrowly defined emergency conditions. Lammy’s proposal is systemic, applying to an ordinary category of criminal cases in peacetime.
The Crown Court backlog 80000 cases did not appear overnight. It accumulated over more than a decade, driven by underfunding, Covid-era delays, and structural inefficiencies in how cases move through the system. The IFG report does not dispute that the backlog is real. It disputes whether removing jurors from either-way offences addresses the right constraint. Two percent of Crown Court time saved is not close to the scale of the problem.
There is also a constitutional argument that the reform’s supporters have been less forthcoming about. Juries in the English criminal justice system are not simply a procedural asset. They represent a check on state power, a mechanism by which ordinary citizens evaluate the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and apply community standards to cases the state has decided to prosecute. Removing that check from a large category of criminal cases does not just speed up trials. It changes the relationship between the citizen and the criminal justice state.
Legal commentators have noted a further layer. Since artificial intelligence has begun to demonstrate significant capability in legal research and document drafting, the creeping depersonalisation of criminal trials may accelerate. Judge-only proceedings create a vacuum that automated legal processing could eventually fill in ways that jury proceedings, with their constitutional protection and public legitimacy, could not.
As of January 2026, the either-way offences jury reform is neither a bill nor a serious policy agenda moving through Parliament. The IFG report may force the government to recalibrate before it reaches that stage. What the debate has exposed is a tension that no adjustment to court procedures will resolve: the backlog is a symptom of decades of underinvestment, and the proposed cure addresses a different problem.
