Issue
What impact will the Courts and Tribunals Bill have on the right to trial by jury in England and Wales?

Short Answer
The Bill aims to address the growing court backlog by restricting jury trials for less serious offences, instead introducing judge-only proceedings for these cases.

Background & Development
The Courts and Tribunals Bill recently passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 304 votes to 203, indicating strong political support for reforming the criminal justice system.

The Bill responds to a significant challenge: the Crown Court currently faces a backlog of around 80,000 cases, with estimates suggesting this could rise to 200,000 by 2035. The government argues that reform is necessary to address this pressure.

The Bill introduces two main changes. For offences likely to result in sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment, judge-only hearings would take place in newly established 'swift courts' instead of jury trials. In addition, magistrates would be given greater powers to hear more serious cases and impose longer custodial sentences.

While these proposals build on the recommendations of the Leveson review, they extend further than many in the legal profession anticipated or would prefer.

Opposition has been both swift and significant. Over 3,200 lawyers, including senior barristers and retired judges, have publicly criticised the Bill. Their concern is not simply practical but also constitutional. They argue that the right to trial by jury is being narrowed in the name of efficiency.

This tension is highlighted by Flora Page KC’s resignation from the Legal Services Board, allowing her to oppose what she calls a direct threat to a fundamental legal safeguard.

Analysis
This reform is not only technical but also represents a significant change in approach to criminal justice.

The government argues that long delays undermine justice. According to its position, faster judge-led trials would reduce the backlog, sustain public confidence, and lessen the adverse effects on victims and defendants.

Yet the counterargument cuts deeper. Trial by jury is more than a procedure; it defines justice in England and Wales. Jury trials promote public participation, check state power, and reinforce the legitimacy of criminal outcomes. As The BluePrint Brief previously reported, proposals to scrap jury trials are also unlikely to deliver significant gains (see The Growing Case Backlog in England and Wales’ Courts).

By removing juries from a wider range of cases, the Bill could effectively change how 'serious' offences are defined in practice. Cases that carry custodial sentences may be decided without input from a jury, which raises concerns about the protection of individual rights and the balance of the justice system.

Critics further argue that underinvestment, not jury trials, is responsible for the backlog. They warn that limiting juries could speed up proceedings without resolving fundamental issues in the system.

Conclusion
The Courts and Tribunals Bill highlights a clear trade-off between improving efficiency in the courts and maintaining long-standing legal safeguards.

If enacted, the Bill would not abolish jury trials but would gradually limit their use in England and Wales. Whether this is viewed as a necessary step or as an erosion of a key protection depends on whether efficiency should take precedence over one of the justice system’s oldest safeguards.