The criminal defence team at Janes is deeply concerned by the recent government proposals of how to tackle the backlog of cases in the Crown Courts.
The Deputy Prime Minister Mr David Lammy announced on 2 December 2025 new plans to scrap jury trials for cases which are likely to be dealt with a sentence of 3 years or less and for “particularly lengthy and technical fraud and financial offences”.
The plan would see the set up of new ‘swift courts’ where a single judge would hear trials and decide the fate of defendants alone. Increased sentencing powers would be afforded to magistrates who could impose custodial sentences of up to 18 months, with Mr Lammy indicating that this could be further increased to 2 years. The proposals are said to be a response and ‘solution’ to the backlog of cases in the Crown Courts which currently stands at almost 78,000 cases.
Our jury system has been in place since the 12th century, and was inscribed as a right in the Magna Carta. It is difficult to understand how the government can now blame a system which has been in existence for 9 centuries as being a cause of the backlog.
Janes have been acting in criminal proceedings in the Crown Courts since 1992 and have witnessed first hand the evolving and repeated issues faced by the courts. We invite the government to consult directly with criminal legal practitioners who appear in the Crown Courts on a weekly if not daily basis and whose experiences should inform any attempts at reducing the backlog and ensuring that justice is served swiftly not only for victims of crimes but for those wrongly accused of crimes.
It is no secret that the criminal justice system is crumbling and those who work in this system have been advocating for years for the government to increase funding to target the real causes of the backlog. It is not juries who delay trials, but:
- The closing of court buildings. Between 2010 and 2019, over half of the courts in the country were closed down and sold. Harrow Crown Court, one of the busiest courts in London, has been closed since August 2023 as the building was literally falling apart, and now relies on court rooms in other Crown Courts and Magistrates’ Courts to hear its trials. The court is not due to reopen until April 2026.
- The repeated delays in prisons producing defendants at court, or simply failing to produce them at all. This in turn delays the start of trials.
- The failings and delays in the prosecution reviewing cases which should not be prosecuted because the evidential and/or public interests tests are not met. Janes have experience in successfully bringing proceedings to an end which should never have seen a day in court.
- The late or lack of evidential disclosure in proceedings which has led to countless trials being vacated because the defendant could not otherwise be guaranteed a fair trial.
Limiting the types of cases which can be tried by a jury risks backfiring and leading to new challenges and further delays. The government has not explained how it will be decided which cases will qualify to be heard by the new swift courts, merely stating that “cases with a likely sentence of three years or less” will be heard by a judge alone, which appears to be the only criteria that is proposed.
A “likely sentence” is subjective and lacks legal certainty, because sentencing guidelines are purposefully designed to account for varying degrees of culpability and harm caused which will in turn determine the sentence to be imposed.
The risk is that people of good character will be affected the most, whose reputation and career and status in life is put in jeopardy and could be ruined by a conviction, say, for a charge involving alleged dishonesty. It would appear that such a person would be even less likely to be entitled to a jury trial as their good character would no doubt count against them when determining their likely sentence and whether the three-year test is met.
It has not been explained whether or how a defendant will be able to challenge/appeal a decision that he or she is not entitled to a jury trial. There will inevitably be an increase in legal arguments, or appeals if permitted, and therefore extra court time will be incurred.
Similarly, the government’s statement on judge-only trials for “particularly lengthy and technical fraud and financial offences” is vague, incoherent and ill thought out. There is no mention whatsoever about what criteria would satisfy the relevant test. It is of real concern that such cases (as they can be generally defined) often go to the heart of government and no doubt many members of the judiciary will be dreading the pressures, implied or otherwise, of making a finding of facts in such cases. Jurisdictions such as Germany, where Judge-only trials occur for the majority of cases, often have the safeguard of a civilian/s acting on the judicial panel, no such proposal is included in the government’s draft bill.
Judges hearing trials will still have to hear all of the evidence, just like a jury would do, but unlike a jury, would have to spend time preparing reasons for their verdict. Currently, when a jury retire to deliberate on their verdict, judges are able to make progress by starting another trial. Under the new proposals, judges will presumably have to reach a verdict first before being able to start with a new case, which risks causing further delays.
If judge only trials are the answer, the government has failed to explain why the magistrates’ courts, where trials are decided either by a judge or bench of lay magistrates, have a backlog of over 310,000 cases.
The only answer to reduce the backlog is an increase in funding to allow for more courts to open, more judges to sit, and encourage more lawyers to join the profession, both for the defence and the prosecution.
The government misses the point when it says that “handing courts the power to decide where cases are heard no longer allowing criminals to game the system and torment their victims.” Mr Lammy should be well reminded of the presumption of innocence – a person awaiting trial is not synonymous with a criminal. It is not only victims who suffer from delayed trials, but those fighting for their innocence who risk losing their livelihood and reputation. Trial by jury has survived for virtually a millennium and should not be whittled away on the flimsiest of basis and a rational that does not bear scrutiny.