Institute for Government says proposed jury trial restrictions would have limited impact on delays and productivity
A major new study has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of the UK government’s plans to cut jury trials in an effort to reduce an escalating crown court backlog.
The Institute for Government (IFG), an independent think-tank based in London, examined the likely impact of Justice Secretary David Lammy’s proposals to reduce the number of jury trials in England and Wales. It found that the changes would yield only marginal time savings in crown court sittings, amounting to less than 2 per cent of total court time.
Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, has argued that reducing jury trials could help address a record backlog of nearly 80,000 criminal cases a figure that has more than doubled compared with pre-pandemic levels.
The IFG’s analysis concluded that even if the number of jury trials were cut by roughly half under the reform package, the overall effect on crown court workload would be minimal. Judge-only trials, which the government estimates can be about 20 per cent quicker than jury trials, would only contribute a fraction of the time savings.
According to the report’s author, Cassia Rowland, the government’s proposals will not resolve the courts’ problems on their own. She emphasised that the proposed changes “will save only marginal amounts of time” and warned that they are unlikely to reduce the backlog in a meaningful way.
The IFG found that the full package of reforms including both limiting jury trials and increasing magistrates’ powers could cut crown court hearing time by around 7–10 per cent. But judge-only trials alone would account for only about 1.5–2.5 per cent of such savings.
The report also highlighted wider productivity issues within the criminal court system. It noted that crown courts are operating at lower productivity than they did a decade ago, and suggested that focusing on workforce capacity and technology improvements would have a greater impact on case clearance than curtailing jury trials.
Rowland said that increasing the number of cases heard in magistrates’ courts which deal with less serious offences could be a more effective strategy for easing pressure on crown courts. Magistrates currently handle more than 90 per cent of criminal prosecutions, with only a small proportion going to jury trials.
The IFG also warned that proposals to expand judge-only trials are likely to be controversial and could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Jury trials are traditionally seen as a fundamental democratic safeguard in serious criminal cases, and legal professionals have voiced concerns about limiting them.
The Ministry of Justice responded to the report by questioning its figures. A spokesperson said the government fundamentally disagrees with the IFG’s assessment and pointed to other reviews including one led by former judge Sir Brian Leveson that have estimated more significant potential time savings from the reforms.
Lammy’s proposals would change the way many criminal trials are conducted in England and Wales. Under the plans unveiled in late 2025, only the most serious offences such as murder, rape and manslaughter would automatically be heard by a jury. Cases with likely sentences of three years or less could instead be heard by a single judge or in magistrates’ courts with expanded sentencing powers.
The government argues these reforms will help victims receive swifter justice amid long delays. Lammy has said investing in structural reform is necessary given current waiting times, which in some cases extend for years.
Critics, however, maintain that reducing juries will not fix the underlying causes of the backlog, such as chronic underfunding and understaffing. They argue that cutting back on jury trials risks eroding a key element of the justice system without delivering the promised efficiencies.