Britain Keeps Crown Court Juries

London — Britain’s Justice Secretary on 4 October abandoned plans that would have let Crown Court judges decide guilt alone in cases expected to draw sentences of three years or less, keeping jury trial as the normal path for more serious criminal work after an outcry from lawyers over an 800-year-old right.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Alex Norris said he had “heard the strength of feeling” on expanding judge-alone Crown Court trials and had “made the decision to change course.” The scrap comes under Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government. Former Justice Secretary David Lammy had floated the wider judge-alone idea in December after a major review of the courts in England and Wales. The Ministry of Justice said judge-alone hearings would continue only for complex fraud and financial cases that can tie jurors up for months.

The announcement lands against a record Crown Court backlog. Official figures cited by the government put nearly 81,000 cases waiting — almost a third of them for a year or longer. The BBC noted projections that the pile could rise toward 100,000 before the next general election without deeper change. Norris framed the U-turn as a way to move earlier on other structural fixes rather than spend time building a new judge-only Crown Court track.

What stays, what goes

A Crown Court is the higher criminal court in England and Wales where juries of twelve hear the most serious charges. A magistrates’ court is a lower criminal court where volunteer magistrates (and some professional district judges) sit without a jury and handle less serious work. An “either-way” offence is a middle-rank crime that can be tried either way: in magistrates’ court or, if sent up, in the Crown Court with a jury. Defendants have historically been able to elect a Crown Court jury trial in many either-way cases when they think that gives them a fairer chance.

Under the revised Courts and Tribunals Bill package, the government still plans to give magistrates power to hand down longer sentences so more work can finish in the lower court. The government also still wants courts — not defendants — to decide where either-way cases are heard, curtailing the old election right that critics say some defendants use to “game” delays. Technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials may still go to a judge alone so jurors are not locked into complex, months-long hearings. The Bill is due back in the House of Commons on 13 October. When it returns, ministers say they will add a statutory commitment to study effects of the reforms on ethnic minorities and people of different backgrounds, led by an independent reviewer.

Courts Minister Sarah Sackman KC said the government would set out, in its response to Lord Leveson’s review, steps such as using artificial intelligence to help list cases, expanding virtual hearings, and making sure defendants arrive on time. A full response to both parts of the Leveson review is due in the coming weeks.

Why lawyers cheered — and where worry remains

Andrew Thomas KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said the profession was “delighted,” arguing that “nothing inspires more public trust than 12 ordinary citizens from all walks of life deciding the facts of a case together.” He welcomed other Bill measures meant to protect victims and witnesses at trial, but warned that stripping the election right and doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years could shift about 25,000 cases a year — including roughly 5,500 jury trials — into magistrates’ courts he called “completely unequipped to try complex, multi-day trials.”

The Guardian reported that magistrates’ sentencing powers would rise from a twelve-month maximum to eighteen months, with an option to extend to two years, and that either-way venue decisions would move to magistrates. Bar Council chair Kirsty Brimelow welcomed the “swift action” on juries but called raising magistrates’ powers and removing the election right a “dangerous experiment” while prisons are full and magistrates’ backlogs grow, warning the change risks deepening disparities for groups that elect jury trials more often.

Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman, quoted in the Guardian, asked whether what remains will be enough — saying victims are being asked to trust a plan ministers had previously argued would not meet the challenge. Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy called the scrap a “major victory” for jury-trial defenders. Labour MP and barrister Karl Turner, suspended from the parliamentary party after criticising the original plans, thanked Burnham for campaign support.

What happens next

The Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to the Commons on 13 October with the jury U-turn written in and with magistrates’ powers, venue control, and limited fraud judge-alone tracks still on the table. The backlog near 81,000 cases remains the pressure point Norris says he wants to cut with investment, technology, and structural reform — without the broader Crown Court judge-alone track that lawyers said would erode a centuries-old safeguard for little backlog gain.