Prime Minister Andy Burnham has scrapped controversial plans to curb some jury trials.
Sir Keir Starmer’s government had introduced proposals to allow judges to make the sole decision on cases that would lead to a sentence of less than three years.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said only complex fraud and financial offences would be judge-alone – and it proposes that thousands of medium-level crimes should stay with volunteer magistrates, who sit without a jury.
Justice Secretary Alex Norris said he had changed course after hearing the “strength of feeling” about the original proposals.
Criminal lawyers have welcomed the decision and the Conservatives say it is a “major victory” for those who fought to defend trial by jury.
Former Justice Secretary David Lammy first announced the plans in December following a recommendation in a major review of the court system in England and Wales.
The series of radical reforms, including scaling back jury trials, were presented as the best way of turning around record backlogs which, in turn, were exacerbating the prison population crisis.
The backlog – which has led to record delays for defendants and victims – currently stands at nearly 81,000 cases – having rocketed largely thanks to cuts before the pandemic and court closures during the national lockdowns. Official projections have estimated it could reach 100,000 before the next general election and, in a worst case scenario, climb to double that number by 2035.
There are, however, indications the backlog is now stabilising after the government committed unlimited funding to pay for more judges to sit in courts that were otherwise being unused.
Under the original plans, Lammy had wanted to reserve jury trials for the most serious “indictable” offences – meaning cases that are always sent to Crown Court, including murder and rape.
Less serious offences, where the sentence would be no more than three years, would be decided without a jury in the Crown Court by a judge alone. Even less serious offences would stay in magistrates’ courts, abolishing defendants’ right to ask for a trial by jury when they feel that is their best chance of beig cleared.
The proposals triggered an outcry across many parts of the criminal justice world, with many opponents saying that eroding the 800-year-old right to trial by jury would not solve the backlogs.
