header-logo header-logo

05 January 2026
Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Four Bars unite to reject Lammy jury restrictions

Barristers and advocates in Scotland, England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have urged the government to drop its proposals for judge-only ‘swift courts’ in cases where the sentence is three years or less

Lord Chancellor David Lammy announced the proposal last month as part of measures to reduce the criminal cases backlog. The change, which has been widely opposed by the legal profession, would require primary legislation, and would affect courts in England and Wales only.

Under the proposals, jury trials would remain for most indictable-only offences including murder, rape, aggravated burglary, blackmail, people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offences.

A judge sitting alone with no jury would be able to hear technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences. Defendants would no longer be able to elect for trial by jury in either-way offences. Magistrates would be given enhanced powers to imprison, up from 12 months to 18 months or two years if needed.

In a joint statement issued last week, however, the Bar of Ireland joined the Bars of Northern Ireland, of England and Wales, and the Faculty of Advocates to say they ‘stand as one in opposition to this proposal’.

The four Bars stated: ‘Being tried by a jury of one’s peers is a fundamental cornerstone of the criminal justice system in our respective jurisdictions.

‘The proposal has drawn substantial and widespread criticism from legal experts and politicians from across the political spectrum. There is no evidence that this fundamental change will bring down the existing Crown Court backlog. The proposal also goes further than Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, which itself has not been piloted nor thoroughly modelled. Importantly, he alerts the Ministry of Justice to the desirability of further detailed analysis before implementation.

‘The curtailment of jury trials has predictable negative consequences, including undermining the public’s trust and confidence in our criminal justice systems... Jurors provide an accumulation of life experience which marginalises extreme or unrepresentative views and, through the majority, delivers balanced and rounded decisions on behalf of the society from which its members were drawn.’

Announcing the proposals in the House of Commons last month, the Lord Chancellor said: ‘My plan combines reform, increased investment in legal aid, sitting days and the courts to help us turn the tide on the rising backlog, deliver swifter justice and put victims first.’

He warned the Crown court backlog could hit 135,100 by 2030 if the current trajectory continues. The latest Ministry of Justice figures show the backlog reached a record high of more than 78,000 between April and June 2025.

Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll