Don’t Jettison the Jury

Sadie Broda-Bahm is a first-year Politics and International Relations student. She is passionate about comparative legal analysis. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/sadie-broda-bahm-907b08310/)

Last month, the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Justice David Lammy announced his proposals for sweeping court reform in the midst of a severe judicial backlog. The submitted amendments include limiting the right to a trial by jury and establishing a new tier of “swift courts” to hear cases in which defendants face sentences of up to three years. Jury trials would be retained for "indictable-only” offences and “either-way” offences which carry sentences greater than three years, with magistrates and judges hearing less serious cases involving shorter sentences (Harewood Law, 2025). However, cases designated as being relevant to “public interest” such as sexual assault, murder, and manslaughter charges will retain a trial by jury (Tanno, 2025). Though trials by jury are being curtailed rather than eliminated entirely, Secretary Lammy’s recommended reform should invite scrutiny and prompt us to consider the significance of juries within the UK’s criminal justice framework. If enacted, these changes would have detrimental implications for the integrity of the judicial system and would undermine the distinct role of juries as representative and deliberative arbiters of justice.

It is vital to consider Secretary Lammy’s proposed reforms in the context of the staggering backlog that burdens the court system and the associated and acute consequences for those seeking justice. Presently, the unresolved caseload in England and Wales threatens the efficacy of the legal system and obstructs the administration of justice due to the current inability of the courts to manage cases. As of November 2025, there were approximately 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and according to the Ministry of Justice, this number is anticipated to reach 100,000 by 2028. Sarah Sackman, minister of state for courts and legal victims, captured the troubling ramifications of this backlog in her statement that, “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts was commissioned by Secretary Lammy and served as the basis for the Secretary’s current proposals. In Leveson’s review, he emphasizes the impacts of this criminal justice crisis for victims and defendants, calling the backlog unacceptable based on its impact on the lives of those awaiting distant trial dates (Fatima, 2024). The lengthy wait times preceding trials have especially damaging consequences for defendants, victims, witnesses, and other individuals entangled in cases of a violent nature, potentially sustaining and exacerbating their trauma. Violence and sexual offence cases account for nearly half of the outstanding cases in the Crown Court’s backlog (Casciani, 2025). Thus, there is a disproportionate disturbance for survivors of sexual assault. A RCEW report concluded that survivors of rape and sexual assault are likely to wait longer periods of time and encounter numerous postponements before their cases are heard (Tanno, 2025). This means that many victims must concede and resign their cases because the process is so prolonged. Certainly, this demonstrates that the justice system is failing to serve the people by delivering legal remedies. Nevertheless, we should question whether juries are actually responsible for the efficiency dilemma, or whether the problem is rooted in systemic bureaucratic inefficiency as a result of underfunding.

The current backlog of cases is undoubtedly a crisis necessitating reform, however, the swiftness of the judicial system must not come at the expense of the established and time-honored practice of trials by jury. Juries offer a number of distinct advantages that render them an integral component of the justice system

Principally, juries elevate the public’s faith and perception of the justice system’s legitimacy. Jury trials are a fundamental pillar of democracy first enshrined in Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta which sets forth that free men should not face punishment without the “lawful judgement of his peers.” As the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution, the “right” to a trial by jury is contested. Despite this, there is a compelling argument that even though no judicial decision or statute has specifically established a right to a trial by jury, the history of common law practice has confirmed their functional and symbolic importance (Benn, 2025).

The passionate rejection of Secretary Lammy’s proposals demonstrates broad public support for juries. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick’s accusation that the reform plans are essentially “ripping up this ancient part of our constitution” reflects a deeply rooted attachment to trials by jury (Pearce, 2025). Though the right to a trial by jury is not constitutionally enshrined, the majority of the British public has expressed their belief that juries are fundamental (Thomas, 2025). In a survey conducted by Rowntree, 89% of respondents indicated that they would support the right to a trial by jury if a bill of rights was formally introduced in the United Kingdom (Thomas, 2025). Longstanding respect for jury trials suggest that limiting the institution could irreversibly compromise trust in the justice system.

Beyond their considerable degree of support, juries are instrumental in promoting political and civic participation. Research conducted in the United States has established an empirical correlation between jury service and civic engagement that is broadly applicable to international frameworks (Roberts and Hough, 2009). Political participation and public trust in the legal system are cultivated through the experience of serving on a jury. A majority (87%) of jurors surveyed across England and Wales reported that if jury duty had been voluntary, they would not have responded to their summons. However, after serving on a jury, an overwhelming majority (81%) attested that they would willingly serve on a jury panel again, reporting positive perceptions of the fairness of the legal process and the experience of being a juror (Thomas, 2025).

Furthermore, juries offer valuable non-legal insight and serve as a representative assembly of the population. The extensive legal knowledge and experience of magistrates and judges may in some instances eclipse their capacity for common sense judgements reflecting popular priorities and perceptions. In this way, jury panels serve as crucial advocates for reasonability and empathy.

Finally, juries have a substantive advantage to their decisionmaking process which should not be undervalued. Juries are crucial in limiting biases because they comprise a panel of individuals with unique life experiences and backgrounds, increasing the chances of robust discussion, limiting “groupthink,” and increasing the likelihood of just rulings. A 2017 independent review of the criminal justice system in England and Wales conducted by Secretary Lammy determined that juries facilitated fair outcomes more frequently than judge-only trials (Tanno). Diverse panels engage in thoughtful and open-minded discussions, participating meaningfully in group dialogue and critically evaluating and expressing their own opinions. Socially diverse groups believe that they have diverging perspectives and as a consequence, they adapt their behavior to anticipate differing opinions and participate in open conversations (Phillips, 2014). The ability of juries to mitigate biases is consequential for individuals who face discrimination within the criminal justice system. As described by Thomas, members of Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic groups have different experiences within the criminal justice system as they are more likely than white individuals to be stopped, searched, charged, and imprisoned (Thomas, 2010). She underscores the fact that juries are the one feature of the criminal justice system that is least likely to discriminate, and yet they are now the target of court reform (Thomas, 2025). Klein and Epley further found in their research that the discussion process leads to groups of individuals being more likely to be able to discern truth from lies, compared to individuals (Klein and Epley, 2015). These findings provide compelling evidence for the efficacy of jury trials and should lead us to question whether the shortcomings of the UK’s justice system should be solved by limiting such a foundational component of the criminal justice process.

Ultimately, the assertion that limiting jury trials will lead to increased efficiency remains unsupported. In fact, there is the potential that these changes may have the inverse effect. Judges are required to produce detailed accounts of how they reached their verdicts, whereas juries are not. This could heighten the potential for rulings to be appealed, thus exacerbating the present backlog crisis (Harewood Law, 2025). And even if the curtailment of jury trials is successful in achieving its intended purpose and reducing judicial backlog, Secretary Lammy has not touched upon the likelihood that juries will return in the future for cases concerning less serious sentences. The reforms have been justified by the overwhelming case backlog, however there is no indication that these changes will be time-limited. As articulated by Benn, we must exercise caution in dismantling integral components of the legal system by relying on an emergency rationale because jury trials would be unlikely to return (Benn, 2025).

Fundamentally, the Ministry of Justice is underfunded and the present judicial crisis will not be resolved through hasty curtailment of juries. Addressing the backlog is an imperative but a legal system committed to the public legitimacy, breadth, and substantive accuracy of its criminal justice decisions should hesitate before choosing to limit the fundamental benefits of the criminal jury.

Works Cited

Benn, A. (2025). In Crisis: the ‘Constitutional’ Right to Jury Trial. [online] UK Constitutional Law Association. Available at: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07/18/alex-benn-in-crisis-the-constitutional-right-to-jury-trial/.

Casciani, D. (2025). How did the courts backlog get so bad? BBC. [online] 18 Dec. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdg7r8de2lo.

Fatima, Z. (2024). Court delays unacceptable for victims and defendants - ex-judge. BBC. [online] 14 Dec. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y85lwpzv3o.

Harewood Law (2025). Jury’s out: Scrapping jury trials and what it means for criminal justice. [online] Harewood Law. Available at: https://www.harewoodlaw.com/news/scrapping-jury-trials-and-what-it-means-for-criminal-justice.

Klein, N. and Epley, N. (2015). Group discussion improves lie detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), pp.7460–7465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504048112.

Pearce, G. (2025). David Lammy accused of ‘ripping up an ancient part of British constitution’ amid plans to scrap jury trials. [online] GB News. Available at: https://www.gbnews.com/politics/david-lammy-ancient-british-constitution-plans-scrap-jury-trials.

Phillips, K.W. (2014). How Diversity Makes Us Smarter. Scientific American, [online] 311(4), pp.42–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1014-42.

Roberts, J.V. and Hough, M. (2009). Public opinion and the jury: an international literature review . Ministry of Justice.

Tanno, S. (2025). The UK wants to scrap jury trials for many crimes. Opponents fear the loss of an ancient right. [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/23/uk/uk-jury-trials-curtailed-intl-gbr-cmd.

Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? [online] Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://mgnyunt.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/are-juries-fair-research-paper.pdf.

Thomas, C. (2025). How the jury system really works. [online] Counsel Magazine. Available at: https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/how-the-jury-system-really-works.