The UK wants to scrap jury trials for many crimes. Opponents fear the loss of an ancient right

London (CNN) — For hundreds of years, Britons accused of substantial crimes have had the right to be tried by their peers in a court of law. But now as the country grapples with an acute backlog of cases waiting to be heard, the right to trial by jury is being curtailed, in what legal experts warn could lead to less fair rulings.

The reforms, announced by Britain’s Justice Secretary David Lammy earlier this month, will see the creation of a new, “swift” tier of jury-free courts, which will take on cases where defendants face sentences of up to three years. Such charges – including fraud, robbery and drug offenses – were previously heard by Britain’s Crown Courts, which handle serious crimes.

Cases of sexual assault, murder and manslaughter, in addition to people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and prosecutions that fall under the category of “public interest,” will still be given a jury trial. The reforms will not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have their own justice systems, and will not impact less severe crimes, such as motoring or public order offenses, which are already processed without juries.

With nearly 80,000 criminal cases currently waiting to be heard in the Crown Courts – a number set to rise to 100,000 by 2028 – the UK’s justice system is in crisis. The backlog includes 13,238 sexual offense cases, according to UK government data. Some victims are forced to wait up to three or four years to have their day in court.

A report by the Victims’ Commissioner, an independent government agency, published in October, depicts an overstretched criminal justice system that many have lost faith in.

One man, a victim of an assault which he said had left him with psychological trauma, told how the lack of capacity had left him without justice.

“The police told me that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) were unlikely to prosecute an assault – I was hit multiple times by a moving van on purpose, the incident was recorded as I was on the phone to the police at the time, and the perpetrator admitted he had done it – because of the court backlog.”

A female victim of stalking and harassment spoke of the fear she suffered as the trial of her alleged perpetrator was delayed and postponed, leaving him at large. It had been “three years of terror for me to live through,” she said.

Advocating for the reforms, Sarah Sackman, minister of state for courts and legal services, referenced the agonizing wait for some victims, telling the House of Commons on December 8 that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Cornerstone of democracy?

Lachlan Stewart, a criminal barrister in Birmingham and the Chair of the Bar Council’s Young Barristers’ Committee, points to delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic as a major reason for the court backlog. “You have this system that didn’t really have any slack in it, that has then not really been able to recover.”

But not everyone’s on board with the reforms. After the plan was initially leaked in British media in November, it drew backlash across the political divide. Conservative MP and Shadow Justice Minister Robert Jenrick described the proposed change as a “disgrace” that shreds an “ancient right.”

Trial by jury in the UK can be traced back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century, seen as the foundation of the modern justice system. As such, it is viewed by many as a fundamental right. A November 2025 YouGov poll found a majority of the general public – 54% – said they would prefer a jury to decide the verdict if they were accused of a crime.

Helena Kennedy KC, a Labour member of the House of Lords, expressed her doubts about limiting jury trials. Speaking to CNN, she suggested the desire among politicians to scrap them stems from “a grandee belief that ordinary folk are not up to it.” Yet, she said, jury service is a key responsibility within a democratic society.

For Kennedy, the main reason the current justice system is broken is because it has been starved of funds.

One example is idle courtrooms – courtrooms that are sitting empty and unused, due to a lack of funding for judges.

On Wednesday, it emerged that 39 Labour Party backbenchers had written to Prime Minister Keir Starmer urging him to U-turn on the reforms, calling them “an ineffective way of dealing with the crippling backlog in cases in our criminal justice system.”

They raised the alternative of increasing the number of sitting days for courts, saying: “Around 130,000 sitting days are available to the courts, yet, despite a capacity crisis, sitting days are restricted by 20,000 a year.”

A key argument against the reforms is that juries allow for a diverse range of life experiences to be brought to the decision making, helping to reduce discrimination and racial biases.

A 2017 independent review into the treatment of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, conducted by Lammy – then a backbench MP – found significant evidence of racial bias but concluded that jury trials were more likely to yield a fairer outcome than judge-only trials, with juries acting as a “filter for prejudice.”

“With the jury system … you are tried by your peers, 12 random members of the public… It’s different ethnicities, different ages, different backgrounds,” Stewart said.

Judges, on the other hand, are usually from a much more limited demographic. “The average age would be in your 50s… They skew male, they skew white and they’re all middle class.”

‘It took too long’

Others, however, think the reforms should go further. British sexual assault charities have long been sounding the alarm about flaws in the current process and stress the need for urgent change. One recommendation from Rape Crisis England & Wales (RCEW) is for the piloting of juryless trials for sexual offense cases – which under the current plan would retain jurors.

In November, RCEW released a report titled “Living in Limbo,” detailing how survivors are retraumatized by the system.

The report found that survivors of rape and other sexual offenses in the UK are increasingly likely to face longer waiting times and last-minute delays before their case is heard in court. Some survivors face more than six trial postponements, the charity says, adding that this process disrupts lives and is so difficult that many survivors pull out of their trials entirely.

The Victims’ Commissioner report contained multiple accounts from victims of sexual offenses as to how they had been affected by the delays.

One victim of rape and sexual assault described how the wait had ultimately forced her to pull out of the prosecution. “Too stressful, (it) took too long. It ruined my life and I thought I’d lose my family if I carried on with the case.”

While the hope is that freeing up court time for serious cases will reduce the wait for victims of sexual offenses, Stewart said there was no hard evidence that it would do so. “There’s no data to show (the reforms) will actually make the system more efficient,” he said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.