Bill backlash
More than 3,000 lawyers have urged Sir Keir Starmer to drop plans to restrict jury trials for some Crown Court cases, with retired judges, former Bar Council chairs and a former Director of Public Prosecutions joining a growing backlash against the proposal.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, 3,236 legal professionals warn ministers not to waste time and money “attempting to force through an unpopular, untested and poorly evidenced change to our jury system”.
Among those who have signed are more than 300 KCs and 22 retired judges, alongside current and former legal heavyweights from across the profession. The signatories include former DPP Sir David Calvert-Smith, Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE and Emma Torr of APPEAL, both legal charities, four former chairs of the bar and two former chairs of the Criminal Bar Association.
Also lending their names are some more familiar faces, including TV barrister Rob Rinder, better known as Judge Rinder, Chaser Shaun Wallace, and Harriet Tyce and Hugo Lodge, the two barrister contestants from this year’s series of The Traitors.
The intervention comes ahead of a parliamentary debate on legislation that would limit access to jury trial in some cases. Under the bill, defendants facing charges likely to attract a sentence of up to three years could lose the right to be tried by a jury, with those cases instead heard by a judge sitting alone.
That proposal has prompted alarm across the profession, not least because it goes further than the model put forward by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent review of the criminal courts. Leveson suggested a new Crown Court Bench Division, in which a judge would sit with two magistrates. The government’s version drops the magistrates altogether.
The letter describes the move as an “erosion of a deeply entrenched constitutional principle for negligible gain”, and argues ministers should instead concentrate on reforms that would make a real dent in the backlog without dismantling a central feature of the criminal justice system.
The government says restricting jury trials in lower-level Crown Court cases will help tackle the backlog of around 80,000 cases by 2028. Critics say the gains are marginal, pointing to Institute for Government research suggesting judge-only trials would save less than 2% of court time, even if they are 20% faster, an estimate Sir Brian described as “highly uncertain”.
In the letter, the signatories say criminal lawyers have continued to “stretch themselves” to ensure the voices of complainants, victims and defendants are heard, and call on the government to now listen to the profession in return. They also urge ministers to focus on reforms already set out in part two of the Leveson review, including longer-term investment in staff, services, infrastructure and technology.
That line is echoed by Bar Council chair Kirsty Brimelow KC, who said the response to the plans showed “unequivocal principled and practical opposition” not just from the bar, but from the legal profession as a whole.
Top barrister said there was no doubt the criminal justice system was in crisis, but blamed decades of underfunding rather than juries. She also accused the government of using modernisation as a cover for weakening a basic constitutional safeguard, describing the proposal as a “Trojan horse” for cutting back jury trial rights while offering little in return.
The signatories also note that senior ministers, including deputy PM David Lammy and courts minister Sarah Sackman, have suggested a reduction in jury trial would be pursued regardless of the size of the backlog.