David Lammy’s proposal to scale back the use of jury trials has ignited deep public unease. This long form analysis explores why the plan marks one of the most significant shifts in modern British justice, how it contradicts Lammy’s previous stance, and why many believe the move risks weakening public trust, especially amid growing concerns over uneven policing and unresolved scandals.
Introduction, A Reform That Strikes at the Heart of Public Justice
David Lammy’s announcement that England and Wales should dramatically reduce the number of criminal cases heard by juries has jolted the legal community and unsettled many ordinary citizens. This is not simply a matter of legal housekeeping, it is a foundational change to the way justice is delivered in this country. The jury system, one of the most historic and publicly trusted pillars of British civic life, now stands in the shadow of reform.
Lammy insists his plan is not ideological but practical. The Crown Court backlog has grown to tens of thousands of cases. Victims are waiting years for trial dates and witnesses are walking away. His message is that the system is failing, and that removing juries in mid level offences is the only way to relieve the pressure.
Yet critics say the opposite. They argue that the backlog is the result of political choices, chronic underfunding, reduced court capacity and an exodus of legal professionals. They warn that restricting jury trials hands enormous power to the state, shrinks democratic participation in justice and could lead to consequences that will be impossible to reverse.
What makes the issue even more uncomfortable is Lammy’s past. In June 2020 he publicly described proposals to remove juries as “a bad idea” and a threat to democracy. Five years later he is championing the very measures he once condemned. The contradiction is striking, and it demands careful scrutiny.
Lammy’s Defence, A System Under Pressure
The Backlog That Frames His Argument
The Crown Court backlog has undeniably reached severe levels. Countless victims wait in limbo while trial dates drift further into the future. Lawyers report witnesses moving abroad, evidence degrading and entire cases collapsing because people lose faith in the process. The pressure has been building for years.
Lammy frames this as a national emergency. He argues that judge led trials for a larger category of offences would be faster, cheaper and more reliable. It is a dramatic shift, but he presents it as a rational response to the scale of the crisis.
An “Emergency” Approach to Justice
His tone has been emphatic. He speaks of traumatised families, of people stuck in endless uncertainty, of victims losing hope. He warns that without decisive action the system risks buckling completely.
But many legal experts point out an uncomfortable truth, juries did not create this crisis. Successive governments allowed court buildings to decay, slashed legal aid, capped judicial sitting days and reduced staffing. According to this view, the crisis is the result of policy decisions rather than the structure of jury trials.
A Profession That Is Not Persuaded
Barristers, judges, clerks, historians, court staff and academics have voiced concern. They argue that speeding up justice by reducing public participation is a dangerous shortcut. They say Britain already has the tools to fix the backlog, it simply requires political will and sustained investment.
As one senior barrister told me, “You cannot reduce public oversight simply because it is administratively convenient. Justice must be fair, not merely fast.”
Why the Jury Matters, A Tradition Rooted in Real History
Origins in the Twelfth Century
The jury is one of the oldest expressions of English justice. Its beginnings lie in the reforms of King Henry II in the 1160s, when local men were summoned to give sworn testimony on disputes and alleged crimes. These early juries did not function exactly as today’s do, but they laid the foundations for a system built on collective judgement.
A Landmark Moment in 1215
Magna Carta, sealed in 1215, embedded the idea that no person should be punished without “the lawful judgement of his peers.” Over the following decades trial by ordeal was abandoned and the modern jury began to take shape. By the mid thirteenth century, juries were a central feature of English criminal justice.
Public Involvement as a Democratic Safeguard
For more than eight centuries ordinary citizens have participated directly in justice. This is not ceremonial. The jury is a democratic safeguard, a defence against concentrated state power and a channel for social conscience. It ensures that verdicts reflect the wider community rather than a narrow professional class.
The Human Judgement Factor
A jury brings twelve sets of experiences, instincts and perspectives to the courtroom. This diversity is essential. No single judge, however skilled, can replicate the collective reasoning that emerges from a group of citizens.
A System Watched by the World
Britain’s jury model influenced democratic systems around the globe. To dilute such a system is not an administrative detail, it is a message. When nations weaken jury participation, observers often read it as a sign of centralisation and reduced public oversight.
Lammy’s U Turn, Why It Cannot Be Ignored
The 2020 Statement That Won’t Disappear
In 2020, Lammy firmly opposed moves to reduce jury trials. He described them as essential to democracy and public trust. Now, as Justice Secretary, he is advancing what appears to be the very policy he once criticised.
That reversal raises uncomfortable questions. Has he genuinely changed his mind, or is he responding to political pressure. Does he believe the crisis is so severe that long held principles can be set aside, or was his earlier statement shaped by opposition politics rather than conviction.
What Critics Believe Is Driving the Reform
Legal critics offer a blunt explanation. Fixing the courts properly would cost billions, take years and require deep political commitment. Reducing jury trials is faster, cheaper and easier. But, they argue, precisely because it is easy, it is dangerous.
Public Trust Is the Real Victim
Surveys consistently show that juries are the most trusted part of the criminal justice system. Judges and politicians do not command the same level of confidence. Removing juries from large areas of criminal law risks eroding faith in the entire system.
Communities that already feel marginalised could lose even more trust. And once that trust is gone, it is difficult to rebuild.
Why Britain Should Refuse This Retreat
Juries Guard Against Miscarriages of Justice
Some of the most infamous miscarriages of justice in British history involved flawed police investigations, unreliable forensic processes or prosecutorial errors. A jury provides a counterbalance. Removing that safeguard places enormous weight on the shoulders of a single judge.
Diversity Improves Justice
A randomly selected jury offers a cross section of society. Unconscious bias is less likely to steer a collective group than an individual decision maker. Diversity is not a luxury, it is a protection.
Rights Cannot Be Sacrificed for Convenience
The right to be tried by one’s peers has survived civil wars, political upheavals and social transformation. It should not be curtailed because modern governments have struggled to maintain court infrastructure. Convenience cannot replace principle.
Once Rights Are Reduced, They Rarely Return
History shows that temporary measures often outlast the crises that justify them. Once a government reduces the role of juries, future administrations may expand that reduction.
Who Loses When Juries Are Removed
Communities With the Least Power
Research repeatedly shows that defendants from minority backgrounds often fare better before juries than before judges. Judge only trials risk widening disparities and deepening existing inequalities.
Victims Seeking Genuine Closure
Victims often feel that jury trials deliver the fullest sense of justice. A transparent public process can provide closure. Shortened judge led trials may leave some feeling that justice has been rushed or diluted. Especially when it comes to poor girls/women rape victims, as we have seen this a lot in the past.
Ordinary Defendants Without Influence
An average citizen may feel intimidated by the idea of a single judge deciding their fate. A jury offers reassurance that a verdict reflects community judgement, not institutional authority.
A New Wave of Public Concern, Protest Crackdowns and Uneven Enforcement
In recent months the streets have seen repeated protests, from pro Palestine rallies to local demonstrations about migrant hotels, yet many among the public feel that enforcement and policing have become deeply inconsistent. In Epping, for example, a protester named Sarah White was arrested after climbing the steps of the district council building and unfurling a Union flag during a demonstration about the use of an asylum hotel in the town. She was charged under a public order law and bailed, only for the charges to be dropped later. She described the episode as unjust and many supporters saw it as an attempt to silence ordinary dissent.
At the same time other large scale protests have triggered sweeping police responses. In London this year, mass demonstrations in support of the recently banned Palestine Action led to hundreds of arrests, many under counter terror legislation for what police described as support for a proscribed organisation. Some of those detained were elderly or retired, yet the enforcement was rapid and far reaching.
For many observers the contrast feels stark. Some protests appear to be met with tolerance and a degree of sympathy, while others see immediate intervention, blanket arrests and charges that seem out of proportion to the conduct involved. This perceived double standard has fuelled a growing belief that enforcement now depends as much on the identity and cause of protesters as it does on the law itself.
The concern is sharpened by the fact that these arrests and prosecutions are occurring at the very moment the government, led by David Lammy, is seeking to limit jury trials. For people who believe they have been treated unfairly or fear that simply voicing patriotic or critical views could lead to arrest, the prospect of more judge only trials feels deeply troubling. Without the oversight of ordinary citizens sitting as jurors, decisions rest entirely in the hands of state officials, reducing transparency and the sense that justice is rooted in community judgement.
For those who already believe the system enforces some laws strictly while appearing to overlook others, the combination of selective policing and a reduced role for juries risks creating a two tier justice environment. In such a climate, dissenting voices and anxious citizens may face swift consequences, while other serious and long standing offences continue to face insufficient attention.
Two Tier Concerns, Uneven Policing and Unanswered Scandals
Towards the end of every public debate about British justice, another criticism appears, the belief that the system operates unevenly across different groups and offences. For years campaigners have argued that grooming gang prosecutions have been inconsistent and, in some areas, painfully slow. Many communities still await full inquiries, full accountability and clear explanations for past failures.
The fear is simple, if jury trials are reduced at the same moment that public confidence is already strained, Britain risks drifting toward a two tier policing and justice system in which certain crimes are pursued aggressively while others are neglected. Whether these claims are proven or not, the perception itself reflects a deep unease that should not be dismissed.
A Moment That Will Be Remembered
Lammy’s proposals mark a decisive juncture. They reach far beyond court administration and raise fundamental questions about who holds power over justice in Britain. If enacted, these reforms may shape the character of British justice for a generation.
This is not a choice between efficiency and chaos. It is a choice between a justice system built on public participation and one increasingly concentrated in state authority. Once that shift occurs, it may not be reversible.
Have Your Say
Should Britain accept fewer jury trials to reduce delays, or should the government invest properly in the court system and protect a tradition rooted in the reforms of Henry II and the sealing of Magna Carta. Would you trust a judge only trial in your own case, or that of someone close to you.
Hi, I’m Sarah Jade. I’m 25, Yorkshire born stubborn redhead, and just finding my feet in the wild world of independent journalism.I’ve always had this fire in me for telling real stories, the kind that actually mean something. I love the British spirit, the blunt honesty, the humour, and yes… I do get emotional about free speech and the truth. I’m not perfect, but I care deeply about people, fairness, and saying what others might be too scared to.