Commons rejects opposition motion seeking to halt proposed changes to jury trials
Members of Parliament voted to reject an opposition motion seeking to block proposed changes to the use of jury trials, following a Commons debate on justice reform held on 7 January 2026.
The debate focused on Government proposals to reduce the number of cases eligible for jury trial as part of wider efforts to address the Crown Court backlog. The opposition motion called on the House to oppose any move to remove the right to jury trial for offences expected to result in custodial sentences of three years or less.
Opening the debate, opposition speakers argued that jury trials form a fundamental part of the constitutional framework and play a central role in maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. They acknowledged the scale of the Crown Court backlog but questioned whether limiting jury trials would deliver meaningful reductions in delay.
The motion also urged the Government to publish all modelling undertaken on the expected impact of the proposed reforms. MPs supporting the motion argued that the House could not properly assess the measures without transparency around their projected effect on case volumes and court capacity.
Government representatives responded by emphasising that jury trials would continue to be available for the most serious criminal cases. They stated that the proposals under consideration would affect only a small proportion of criminal proceedings and were intended to modernise court processes rather than dismantle long-standing protections.
Ministers told the House that the Crown Court backlog reflects years of systemic pressure and that reform is necessary to improve efficiency. They argued that adjusting the scope of jury trials could form part of a broader package of measures aimed at delivering swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants.
During the debate, MPs on both sides recognised the importance of jury trials in the justice system but disagreed on how best to balance constitutional principles with the practical need to reduce delays. Several speakers stressed that any reform should be evidence-based and proportionate.
The House was divided following the debate. The opposition motion was defeated by 290 votes to 182, with the Government securing a clear majority. As a result, the motion opposing changes to jury trial eligibility was not agreed to.
The vote allows the Government to continue developing its proposals as part of its wider justice reform agenda. No specific legislative timetable was set out during the debate.
The Commons discussion highlighted the political sensitivity surrounding jury trials and the broader challenge of addressing court delays while maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.