Jury Trials Under Pressure: Why Plans for Judge-Only Courts Are Stirring Debate

For centuries, the jury has been one of the most recognisable features of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Although not a formal constitutional right, the presence of twelve citizens in the courtroom has long been seen as a safeguard against concentrated state power.

Today, that tradition is facing new pressure. A series of proposals, prompted by growing concern about court delays, has opened a national discussion about whether juries should remain central to the system.

None of the proposed reforms have been enacted, and jury trials still operate as

normal for all offences that currently qualify. However, recent reviews, including a

major one led by Sir Brian Leveson, have advised the government to consider creating an additional tier of the Crown Court. This would involve a “bench division” in which certain cases could be tried by a judge sitting alone, or potentially with magistrates, rather than by a jury.

Supporters of the idea argue that judge-only trials could ease the

severe backlog in criminal courts, which has resulted in thousands of cases waiting months or even years to be heard.

The government has not introduced legislation, but leaked briefings and ministerial comments have indicated interest in limiting jury trials to the most serious offences, such as murder and rape, with less serious matters heard in the new division.

Proponents argue that modern cases, particularly those involving complex financial evidence or large volumes of digital material, can overwhelm jurors and cause costly delays.

The legal profession has pushed back strongly. The Bar Council, the Criminal Bar

Association and The Law Society have expressed concern that reducing jury trials would weaken public participation, risk unconscious bias from single-judge decision making and create a system in which speed is valued over fairness. Critics also warn that temporary reforms introduced to manage backlogs could gradually become permanent features of criminal justice.

For now, jury trials remain in place, and the proposed changes are only under

consideration. Yet the debate raises a fundamental question: in an era of pressure on courts, should justice prioritise efficiency or preserve one of its oldest democratic traditions?