header-logo header-logo

Lammy's overhaul of jury trials 'goes too far', say lawyers

03 December 2025
Issue: 8142 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Criminal defence lawyers have expressed dismay at the Lord Chancellor David Lammy’s plans to reduce the backlog by scaling back jury trials to murder, rape, homicide and other indictable crimes where the sentence is three years or more

Magistrates’ sentencing powers will be increased from one year to 18 months, and could be extended to 24 months if necessary.

Lammy’s plans, delivered in Parliament this week, build on Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. While Sir Brian proposed an extra court tier where a judge sits alongside two magistrates, Lammy plans to introduce a judge-only ‘swift’ court.

Law Society vice president Brett Dixon said the government’s proposals ‘go too far in eroding our fundamental right to be judged by a jury of our own peers.

‘Allowing a single judge, operating in an under resourced system, to decide guilt in a serious and potentially life changing case is a dramatic departure from our shared values.’

The latest government figures for April to June 2025 showed 78,329 outstanding cases in the Crown Court and 361,027 in the magistrates’ court. Lammy told MPs the backlog is projected to rise above 100,000 cases.

However, David Corker, consultant at Corker Binning, said the government should have adopted the Canadian and Australian model in serious fraud cases of giving the accused ‘the right to choose to be tried by a judge or by a jury.

‘Defendants in complex cases in those jurisdictions predominantly opt for the former, and having done so, the outcomes attract their and the public’s confidence’.

Mark Jones, partner at Payne Hicks Beach, said: ‘Court delays stem from long-term underfunding, not juries.

‘If the government is serious about reducing the backlog, it must invest in the justice system rather than weaken a defendant’s right to elect to be judged by their peers.’

Matthew Hardcastle, partner at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘The continued “silver-bullet” and headline driven approach to change is deeply disappointing.

‘Changing some aspects of the criminal justice system will not magically solve systemic issues.’

Lammy also pledged an extra £550m over three years for specialist support services for victims and witnesses. 

Issue: 8142 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll