A report from the Institute for Government (IfG) on the potential impact of government plans to restrict jury trials reveals the changes would “unlock only relatively modest reductions in demand”.
Instead, the IfG says, the government should focus on reversing the decline in productivity seen in the crown courts since 2016.
The proposals to reduce the number of cases heard in front of a jury were made by the secretary of state for justice, David Lammy, in December, in response to a growing case backlog which has more than doubled since 2019.
But the IfG report reveals the plans would result in a reduction of around 7-10% of courtroom time, with just 1.5-2.5% of that time saved by the introduction of judge-only trials in the crown court bench division.
“Saving 7-10% of court time would make a meaningful difference to the function of the courts and the case backlog,” the IfG acknowledged.
“But the impacts are still highly uncertain and it is likely to take at least two years before they are felt, quite possible more. It is not until 2029 that the government hopes the case backlog will begin to fall.
“And the changes will not be easy to enact, practically or politically: the proposed measures are highly contentions, and strong resistance – especially to judge-only trials – among criminal lawyers and some judges will only make things harder on both counts.”
And, the IfG added, any gains would be negated by “the institutional upheaval, political controversy and likely damage to public confidence from substantially reducing access to jury trials.”
The proposals centre around three key elements: increasing the sentence powers of magistrates from 12 to 18 months to enable them to hear more cases, introducing judge only trials – or ‘swift courts’ – for around a quarter of crown court trials, and removing the right of defendants in moderately serious cases to choose between the magistrates’ court or crown court.
All of the most serious indictable-only offences, including robbery, rape and serious violent assaults, will be eligible for jury trial. Moderately serious offences such as fraud, serious theft, drug supply and weapons offences will be eligible to be heard by magistrates or a single judge under the proposals.
However, the report points out that previous increases to magistrates court sentencing powers in 2022 and 2024 resulted in a reduction of just 1 percentage point in the number of cases sent to the crown court for trial.
“Even if the number of either-way guilty plea cases heard in the crown court were cut by a third, that would only reduce total time spent on these cases by around 2%, given the increase in demand on magistrates’ courts,” the report explains. “In practice, even this large an impact is unlikely.”
The report also reveals that while the number of jury trials will fall by around half, the time it takes to hear cases is likely to fall by less than 10%, with no impact on plea hearings, bail applications and sentencing hearings.
“These make up a large and growing proportion of demand on the court – about a third of court hearing time in 2024,” the report notes. And, with the more serious cases that will still need to be heard by a jury making up around three quarters of court time spent on jury trials, over 80% of demand on the crown court is out of scope of the reforms.
The MoJ estimates around a quarter of trials that currently reach the crown court will be heard by a judge sitting alone, resulting in a 20% time saving. If the estimates are correct, the IfG report notes, “that would save less than 2% of total court time.”
An alternative that enjoys broad support, according to the IfG, is to focus on reversing the decline in court productivity which has seen sitting hours reduced by almost 20% since 2016.
“The government should focus on understanding what is driving differences in court productivity around the country… the potential benefits of returning crown court productivity to 2016 levels substantially outweigh the likely demand savings from the structural reforms the government is proposing. This is where the government should start.”
The Law Society of England and Wales agrees. “If the UK government is serious about tackling the appalling backlogs in the criminal courts, its focus must be on the investment and reforms that will make the most difference,” the society’s president, Mark Evans, said.
“Today’s Institute for Government report indicates that cutting jury trials would have only a negligible impact.
“Hearing more trials in magistrates’ courts may have a more significant impact, according to the IfG report, but there are also record backlogs and serious underfunding in these courts.
“To bring down the backlogs and ensure truly swift and fair justice, the government must focus on efficiencies and investment across the entire criminal justice system, reducing reoffending rates and the number of cases coming into the courts.”
Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand
