Justice Needs Juries — But It Needs More Than That

The Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, the Four Bars, circuit leaders, and the wider legal profession have been united in their opposition to the government’s proposals to curtail jury trials. The “Justice Needs Juries” campaign has been vigorous, principled, and effective — contributing to the 39 Labour backbenchers who broke ranks and the evident nervousness in the Ministry of Justice about pushing the reforms through.

As a criminal defence solicitor and miscarriage of justice solicitor, I share that instinct entirely. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition to be discarded for administrative convenience. The Lammy Review — conducted, ironically, by the very minister now proposing these reforms — found that successive studies showed juries deliver equitable results regardless of ethnicity, describing them as a “success story” in a system where racial disparities persist at almost every other stage. That finding alone should give any reformer pause.

But defending jury trial, vital as it is, cannot be the whole of the profession’s answer to a system in crisis. The challenge facing all of us — barristers and solicitors alike — is how to protect fundamental rights while engaging honestly with the reality that the system as it stands is failing everyone who depends on it.

The bigger picture

The profession’s engagement with these reforms has rightly gone well beyond the jury trial question. The Bar Council submitted detailed proposals to the Leveson Review on diversion, listing reform, case management, and court efficiency. It has welcomed investment in legal aid and pupillages. Kirsty Brimelow KC’s response to Leveson Part 2 engaged seriously with systemic issues — courts sitting empty, late delivery of prisoners, the need for better use of technology. The CBA has met directly with Leveson and the Courts Minister. The Law Society has pressed consistently on the crisis in criminal defence recruitment and the need for proper resourcing of any new court structures.

But the sheer scale of the jury trial debate — understandably, given what is at stake — risks overshadowing the wider complexities of a reform agenda that touches almost every part of the criminal justice system. And those complexities deserve attention too, because the problems the reforms are trying to address are real.

Trials are being listed for 2030. Victims are withdrawing. Defendants on bail are living in limbo for years, and defendants on remand are serving what amount to unsentenced custodial terms while they wait. The DPP, in his speech earlier this month, was right to say that no one working in the system can look victims in the eye and say we are delivering swift justice.

These are not problems that can be solved by defending the status quo, however justified that defence may be on the jury trial question. They demand a pragmatic, system-wide response from the profession — and that means engaging with the full breadth of proposals on the table, not just the most controversial one.

Where pragmatism is needed

The Law Society’s own research found that 73% of solicitors surveyed were concerned about the removal of jury trials — but it also found that solicitors recognised a broad range of measures would be needed for reform to work, including additional court staff, increased legal aid funding, and proper resourcing of any new court tier. That pragmatism reflects the daily reality of criminal defence practice. We are not opposed to change. We are opposed to bad change — change that undermines fairness without addressing the actual causes of delay.

And there are elements of the reform package that warrant constructive engagement rather than blanket rejection. The £92 million uplift for criminal solicitors is welcome and overdue. The expansion of magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months raises legitimate concerns about proportionality and appeal rights, but it is not inherently objectionable if properly safeguarded. Even the principle of an intermediate court tier is not without merit — Leveson’s original proposal of a judge sitting with two magistrates is materially different from the government’s judge-alone “Swift Court,” and there may be models worth exploring.

The individual proposals in this reform package require careful, differentiated scrutiny. Some should be opposed. Some should be supported. Some need significant amendment. That kind of granular, evidence-based engagement is what the system needs from its practitioners — and it is the approach most likely to produce workable outcomes. We have to ensure that there is a system wide investment in change away from headline grabbing opposition .

Principled and pragmatic

None of this means rolling over on the issues that matter. The right to elect Crown Court trial matters. The constitutional significance of jury participation matters. The evidence on racial equity in jury verdicts matters enormously. And the government’s characterisation of defendants who exercise their rights as people “gaming the system” is offensive and should be challenged at every opportunity. We seem to ignore for example that even a relatively minor either way offence can have a devastating effect on a person facing the justice system for the first time – should we really deny them the right to be tried by their peers in such circumstances .

The profession — barristers and solicitors together — must also be at the table with practical solutions to the genuine crisis in the courts. On disclosure reform. On court sitting days. On the chronic shortage of criminal defence practitioners. On the operational failures that see prisoners not produced, video links not working, interpreter difficulties and courtrooms sitting empty. These are the issues that will determine whether reform actually delivers for defendants, victims, and practitioners alike.

The strongest position the profession can take is one that is both principled and pragmatic — defending the rights that matter while demonstrating that we understand the scale of the problem and have credible answers to it. That is harder than drawing a line in the sand, but it is what the moment demands.

As the Crime and Policing Bill enters Lords report stage this week, the profession has a narrow window to shape these reforms. We should use it wisely.