Plans by the Ministry of Justice to restrict defendants’ ability to choose to be tried by jury have drawn criticism from leading lawyers who warn that the proposals amount to an ‘irremediable error‘.  

These concerns were set out in a detailed letter coordinated by Garden Court Chambers, which argue that the reforms represent a fundamental constitutional shift undertaken without meaningful engagement with the legal community. 

The debate intensified following reporting in the Guardian, which revealed that ministers intend to advance legislation limiting jury trials for thousands of cases. Courts minister Sarah Sackman KC claimed defendants were gaming the system by opting for jury trials to cause delays in their cases. This is in the context of a Crown Court backlog nearing 80,000 cases. 

 The proposals closely follow the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts. Leveson warned that without structural intervention, the system risks ‘total collapse’. His suggestions included creating a Crown Court bench division where either way offences would be tried by a judge and two magistrates and restricting jury trials to offences carrying sentences above two years.  

However, critics argue that such reforms misdiagnose the root cause of the crisis. A survey by the Criminal Bar Association’s showed overwhelming opposition to removing juries from fraud and ‘either way’ cases, emphasising that chronic underfunding and limited sitting days, rather than defendants, that drive delays. The CBA further warned that shifting fact finding to a less diverse judiciary risks eroding public confidence, especially given the Lammy Review’s finding that juries remain the only part of the system largely free from racial bias.