The publication of Part 1 of The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts by Sir Brian Leveson has reheated an important debate. As anticipated, it recommends restructuring the Criminal Justice System as we know it. Leveson proposes the creation of a new division of the Crown Court, called the 'Crown Court (Bench Division)' to reduce the reliance on jury trials – a proposal framed as a response to the overwhelming Crown Court backlog.
Some key recommendations put forward:
- The creation of a new division of the Crown Court, namely the Crown Court (Bench Division), in which a judge and two magistrates hear "either way" offences – those in which the defendant can currently choose to be heard by either a magistrate or a jury in the crown court.
- Reclassifying some either way offences to become summary only offences so they can be tried only in a magistrate's court.
- Removing the right to elect to be tried in the Crown Court for certain low-level offences that carry a maximum sentence of no more than two years.
- The right for all defendants in the Crown Court to elect to be tried by a judge alone.
We should be extremely cautious. Radical reform of our system is indeed necessary, but this may be the wrong answer. Replacing juries, no matter the offence, will erode public trust, reduce fairness, and fail to address the real cause of this crisis: a justice system hollowed out and crippled by decades of underfunding.
Jury trials are not a luxury
Trial by jury is not an administrative detail. It is a constitutional right and a democratic safeguard. It places ordinary citizens at the centre of criminal justice, guaranteeing defendants are judged by their peers.
The necessity of this function cannot be overstated. The Bushell's Case (1670) established that juries can deliver verdicts according to their conscience - even when judges disagree. That principle, still commemorated at the Old Bailey, remains among our most powerful checks on governmental overreach.
It is also one of the few elements of the system that works without bias. The Lammy Review's analysis of nearly 400,000 criminal cases found no statistically significant evidence of racial discrimination in jury decisions. The charity APPEAL warns that reducing jury trials will disproportionately harm marginalised groups and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. To weaken jury trials in the name of efficiency, therefore, risks further alienating communities who already feel misrepresented and over-policed.
The crisis is real, but not new
The Crown Court backlog stood at over 40,000 in early 2020, long before COVID-19 hit. By late 2024, it had surpassed 75,000. This crisis did not appear overnight.
Years of successive cuts to court budgets, the reduction in sitting days, and a failure to recruit and retain qualified judges and barristers have left the system chronically weakened. In many court centres, rooms lie empty while Recorders, qualified part-time judges, are under utilised.
The shortage is not limited to courts and judges. The privatisation of the prison escort service routinely causes defendants to miss hearings, wasting judicial time. Budget cuts to the police and CPS have further undermined the system's ability to bring and progress cases efficiently. The Bar Council has repeatedly warned that without proper funding and structural investment, including in legal aid and fees for criminal barristers, these problems will only deepen.
Leveson's proposal is a distraction
Leveson recommends that the government reclassifies a list of either way offences to summary only and the creation of a Crown Court (Bench Division) constituted by a judge sitting alongside two magistrates, without a jury. Leveson states in his review that his 'proposal is that the Crown Court (Bench Division) should have the potential to hear all either way offences' [paragraph 58 of his Summary of Recommendations]. He explains that the decision whether a case should be allocated to the Crown Court (Bench Division) would be based on several factors, principally whether the likely custodial sentence on conviction in that case would be three years or less.
Both these recommendations aim to drastically reduce the possibility to elect a trial by jury.
These changes do not address the real causes of delay – this is merely reshuffling who sits in judgment without looking at the root of the issue. Nor will these changes increase public confidence.
These changes divert attention from real solutions. The Bar Council and other relevant bodies have set these out: full utilisation of existing court capacity, restoring sitting days, funding the recruitment and retention of legal professionals, and reforming fee schemes.
A further factor to consider is the number of cases coming into the system and whether this could be reduced. Leveson himself describes [paragraph 4 of his Summary of Recommendations] how successive governments have adopted 'tough on crime' policies which have led to more cases and driven sentence inflation. Leveson's recommendations for out-of-court resolutions are particularly relevant and welcome. APPEAL is correct when it recommends similarly that weak cases that lead to acquittals can often be identified before getting to trial and only cases with a compelling public interest should be prosecuted.
Yes to reform - but not this one
The country's justice system is in urgent need of investment and intelligent reform. But that reform must be aimed at strengthening rights and restoring capacity - not stripping away the foundations of our criminal justice system.
Replacing jury trials is a political shortcut with potentially catastrophic long-term consequences.
Cutting jury trials won't clear court backlogs - restoring our capacity to hold them will.
Originally Published 11 July 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
