The government is poised to significantly dilute its contentious plans to limit the right to a jury trial in England and Wales, following a substantial backlash from the legal profession, judges, and MPs.
A Controversial Proposal Meets Stiff Resistance
Initial proposals, unveiled in a consultation paper last autumn, sought to grant magistrates the power to decide the mode of trial for certain "either-way" offences. These are crimes, such as lower-level theft or assault, which can currently be heard either in a magistrates' court or the Crown Court before a jury. The Ministry of Justice argued the move would free up an estimated 1,800 Crown Court sitting days annually, helping to tackle the severe backlog of over 67,000 cases.
However, the plan was met with immediate and fierce opposition. Critics, including the Bar Council, the Law Society, and former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption, condemned it as an assault on a fundamental democratic right. They warned it would undermine public trust and disproportionately affect vulnerable defendants, who might feel pressured into accepting a summary trial without a jury.
The Expected U-Turn and New Safeguards
In response to this concerted criticism, government sources now indicate the final policy will be substantially watered down. While the formal response to the consultation is still pending, it is expected that the defendant's right to choose a jury trial for either-way offences will be preserved in most circumstances.
Instead of magistrates making the decision, the revised approach is likely to involve a new sentencing discount to incentivise defendants to opt for trial in a magistrates' court. This would mirror the existing discount for an early guilty plea. Furthermore, the government may introduce stricter guidelines or a formalised process to ensure magistrates provide clear, documented reasons when advising a defendant on where their case should be heard.
"The backlash was severe and from all quarters," a Whitehall source stated. "The original proposal is effectively dead. The focus now is on managing the Crown Court backlog through other means, like encouraging more efficient choices, not removing the right to choose."
Implications for the Justice System
This retreat represents a significant victory for legal campaigners and highlights the enduring symbolic power of trial by jury in the public and professional consciousness. The government's primary driver—the dire state of the Crown Court backlog—remains an urgent problem, but ministers have been forced to seek alternative solutions.
The episode underscores the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional principle. While the government seeks to streamline a creaking system, any perceived erosion of long-standing rights triggers profound concern. The expected new model, focusing on incentives rather than removal of choice, attempts to navigate this tension, though its practical effectiveness in reducing the backlog is yet to be proven.
The Ministry of Justice's official response to the consultation is anticipated in the coming weeks, where the full details of this policy shift will be confirmed.
