(Commonwealth_Europe) The Bar Council of England and Wales has called on the government to rethink proposed changes to the jury trial system, warning that the plan could weaken one of the most important traditions in the country’s justice system. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, thousands of legal professionals said the reforms are “unpopular, untested, and poorly evidenced,” and they urged ministers to reconsider them before they move further through Parliament.
The proposal forms part of reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which aims to tackle the growing backlog of criminal cases in England and Wales. Under the changes, defendants charged with certain offenses—particularly those that could lead to a prison sentence of up to three years—would lose the right to a jury trial. Instead, a judge alone could decide these cases.
The government believes the change could help speed up the court system, but the idea has raised strong concerns across the legal community. More than 3,200 lawyers, including retired judges, senior barristers, solicitors, and academics, signed the letter to the prime minister. A former head of the Crown Prosecution Service was among them, demonstrating the widespread concern within the profession.
Those who signed the letter stressed that jury trials are about much more than courtroom procedure. For centuries, they have allowed ordinary members of the public to take part directly in the justice process, helping ensure that verdicts reflect the values and perspectives of society rather than decisions made solely by legal authorities. Removing the right to a jury trial often, they warned, could slowly erode public trust in the justice system.
The lawyers also said that people working within criminal law are already doing everything possible to keep the system running despite the pressure. Prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, and court staff are often managing overwhelming workloads as they try to make sure the voices of victims, complainants, and defendants are heard. In their letter, the signatories said that while legal professionals continue to stretch themselves to keep the system functioning, they hope the government will now listen to their concerns as well.
Many of them argue that there are other ways to reduce delays without restricting the right to a jury trial. Experts say increased funding, more courtrooms, and better case management could speed up the system while still protecting defendants’ rights.
The letter was released shortly before Parliament held the second reading debate on the bill. During that debate, the government defended its proposals by pointing to the real impact of long delays on victims of crime.
Justice Secretary David Lammy said the current backlog in the courts is causing serious harm, particularly in cases involving offences such as rape. Victims in these cases can wait an average of 423 days before their trial even begins. Lammy said such long waits leave victims trapped in uncertainty, describing the experience as the painful “silence of waiting” while their cases slowly move through the legal system.
However, critics in the opposition and within the legal profession say the government risks sacrificing an important principle of justice in the name of efficiency. They argue that juries play a vital role in a democratic system by bringing ordinary citizens into the decision-making process. Some critics have also suggested that the government is effectively removing a long-standing right without clearly seeking the public’s approval.
The burden for restructuring largely comes from the rising strain on the Crown Court system. In recent years, the number of open criminal cases waiting to be processed has risen abruptly. The accumulation has more than doubled since 2019 and is straddling around 79,619 cases in September 2025. If the inclination continues, predictions suggest it could climb to about 113,000 cases by March 2029.
Numerous factors have contributed to the current state of criminal cases. Modern criminal cases often include complex investigations and large amounts of digital evidence that take time to appraise. Missing witnesses, preparation issues, or other technical complications can also delay trials. Together, these tasks have decelerated the system and left thousands of cases waiting to be heard.
Still, not everyone is convinced that cutting back on jury trials will make a significant difference. The Institute for Government’s research indicates a potentially limited impact. According to its analysis, even if judge-only trials were about 20 per cent faster than jury trials, the overall reduction in court time would be only around two per cent — a relatively small improvement given the scale of the backlog.
The discussion also traces the long past of jury trials in England. The scheme dates back to the 12th century and has become a keystone of the country’s common law custom. Over time, it spread to many other countries that adopted similar legal systems.
Because of that long history, many lawyers see the right to a jury trial as more than just a legal procedure. They see it as a sign of democratic engagement and a crucial defence against the state’s unbridled authority.
As the bill continues its journey through Parliament, the argument is likely to remain intense. The government says it must act to reduce delays and make the courts more efficient. But many legal professionals warn that in trying to fix the backlog, the country could end up weakening a fundamental part of its justice system.
