Reforming Jury Trials: A Pragmatic Path to a Faster, Fairer System for Victims?

Professor Jonathan Doak, Associate Dean for Research at NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/law/jonathan-doak

The foundation of any civilised society rests on its justice system—the framework through which wrongs are addressed, rights are upheld, and social peace is preserved. Yet in England and Wales, that foundation has been straining under an unsustainable weight. The criminal justice system has reached crisis point, leaving tens of thousands of victims trapped in limbo, their pursuit of justice stalled by an ever‑expanding backlog. With projections suggesting the Crown Court caseload could climb towards 100,000 by 2028, the current trajectory is not simply inefficient; it is a profound betrayal of those who depend on the system for redress.

It is against this backdrop that Justice Secretary David Lammy has unveiled proposals for radical reform. Predictably, they have provoked fierce criticism from opposition politicians and legal academics, many of whom voiced alarm even before the details were published. Yet while scepticism is understandable, there is another perspective: these reforms may mark a pragmatic and necessary evolution, offering a route towards a criminal justice system that is more responsive, more efficient, and ultimately fairer.

The Unbearable Weight of Delay

Imagine being a victim of crime, having endured trauma, and then facing years of uncertainty as your case slowly grinds through the system. This is the grim reality for countless individuals in the UK today. The current backlog, hovering around 78,000 cases, is not just a statistic; it represents lives on hold, emotional distress prolonged, and a fundamental erosion of faith in justice.

For victims, justice delayed is truly justice denied. Prolonged waiting times exacerbate trauma, forcing individuals to relive their experiences repeatedly, often leading to immense stress and anxiety. It is a heartbreaking reality that many victims, exhausted and re-traumatised by the glacial pace, ultimately withdraw from prosecutions, effectively letting offenders off the hook. This isn't just an administrative problem; it's a human tragedy playing out on a massive scale. The system, designed to protect and serve, is inadvertently causing further harm. The financial cost of this inefficiency is also staggering, but the human cost is immeasurable.

Tailoring Justice to the Crime

The government's proposals are designed to tackle this crisis head-on, focusing on streamlining processes and allocating resources more effectively. At the heart of these reforms is a re-evaluation of how different types of cases are handled, ensuring that the most serious crimes receive the full weight of traditional justice, while less complex matters can be resolved more swiftly.

One of the most significant proposals is the restriction of jury trials to the most serious criminal offences. The key proposal is that certain ‘either‑way’ offences (such as burglary, theft, fraud, some sexual offences, and lower‑level assaults) will be tried by a judge alone, without a jury, if the likely sentence is three years or less. This is not an abandonment of the jury system, but rather a strategic deployment of its unique strengths. For cases where the stakes are highest, where complex moral judgments and community representation are paramount, the jury remains indispensable. However, for less serious or more technical cases, the argument for a jury trial becomes less compelling, especially when weighed against the immense delays and costs to which it contributes.

Consider the benefits for victims here: if a case of, say, serious assault or complex fraud can be heard by a judge alone, the process is likely to be significantly faster. This means quicker resolution, less time spent in a state of anxious anticipation, and a swifter path to closure. It acknowledges that while all crimes are serious to the victim, the procedural requirements for a minor theft do not need to be identical to those for a murder trial.

Further reforms include the introduction of judge-only courts for less serious and technical cases. Judges, with their extensive legal training and experience, are perfectly capable of assessing evidence and applying the law in these contexts. In technical cases, a judge's expertise can often lead to a more efficient and accurate determination than a lay jury might achieve, avoiding the need for lengthy explanations of complex concepts. This move promises to free up valuable Crown Court time and resources, directly contributing to reducing the backlog.

Expanding magistrates' sentencing powers is another crucial element. Magistrates' courts are the workhorses of the justice system, handling around 95 per cent of criminal cases. By empowering them to deal with a broader range of offences, more cases can be resolved at a lower, faster level, preventing them from escalating to the already overburdened Crown Courts. This again translates directly into quicker outcomes for victims and a more efficient use of judicial time.

Finally, the creation of intermediate courts aims to bridge the gap between magistrates' and Crown Courts, providing another tier for efficient case management. This multi-tiered approach allows for greater flexibility and specialisation, ensuring that each case is heard in the most appropriate forum, thereby optimising speed and effectiveness.

Learning from Others

England may be regarded as the cradle of the common law, but its descendants have often evolved into more adaptive and innovative systems. Opponents of reform frequently invoke the historical sanctity of the jury trial, pointing to its roots in Magna Carta and its enduring role as a safeguard of liberty. These are weighty and legitimate considerations. Yet it is essential to recognise that England and Wales is neither the universal benchmark for common law practice nor insulated from comparative experience. Across other common law jurisdictions—each with equally robust traditions of justice and individual rights—jury trials are deliberately reserved for the gravest offences, while less serious matters are resolved through streamlined processes that preserve both fairness and public confidence.

Take Canada, for example. Here the constitutional right to a jury trial applies to offences punishable by five years or more imprisonment. For many indictable offences, the accused may elect to be tried by a judge alone or by a judge and jury, while for hybrid offences the Crown decides whether to proceed summarily or by indictment. This framework ensures that the most serious crimes benefit from jury deliberation, while less complex matters can be resolved more efficiently by judge‑alone trials, without undermining fairness or public confidence. Other common law jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, have adopted similar variations, carefully defining the scope of jury trials as a pragmatic response to modern judicial demands. In my own jurisdiction, Northern Ireland, judge‑only trials have been a feature of terrorism‑related cases since 1973—albeit under unique and exceptional circumstances.

These examples illustrate that adapting the application of jury trials is not a radical departure from common law principles, but rather a sensible evolution. It is about ensuring that the spirit of justice – fairness, impartiality, and timely resolution – is upheld, even if the form of its delivery is adjusted to meet contemporary challenges.

The Victim's Imperative

Ultimately, the most compelling argument for these reforms lies with the victims of crime. A justice system that is perpetually backlogged, that forces victims into years of agonizing waiting, and that ultimately leads to their withdrawal from prosecution, is a system that is failing its most vulnerable citizens.

These reforms promise a future where justice is not just an abstract ideal, but a tangible reality delivered in a timely manner. Faster case processing means less re-traumatisation, quicker access to support services, and a swifter path to closure. It means victims can begin to rebuild their lives sooner, rather than being trapped in an endless cycle of court dates and delays.

While the historical significance of the jury trial is undeniable, clinging rigidly to a single model for all cases, regardless of their complexity or severity, in the face of overwhelming evidence of systemic failure, is not a virtue. It is an impediment to justice. The proposed reforms are a courageous and necessary step towards a more agile, responsive, and victim-centric criminal justice system. They represent a commitment to ensuring that the pursuit of justice is not a marathon of endurance, but a process that delivers timely and meaningful outcomes for those who need it most.

The debate surrounding these reforms is vital, but it must be grounded in the reality of the current crisis and the urgent need for practical solutions. By embracing these changes, the UK has the opportunity to forge a justice system that is not only steeped in tradition but also fit for purpose in the 21st century, one that truly serves its citizens and, crucially, delivers justice for its victims.