Criminals dealing with sentences of lower than three years to lose jury trial entry

Criminals facing sentences of less than three years for offences like burglary, possession of drugs and some forms of sexual assault will lose access to jury trials.

Under a major shake-up of the courts system, the number of cases going to juries is expected to halve from 3% to 1./5%.

Defendants accused of a whole host of crimes currently have the choice to choose a jury trial if they wish. But under once-in-a-generation plans, the right to choose will be completely ditched with the judiciary in charge of deciding which part of the courts system a trial will take place.

The controversial curbing of jury trials is hoped to help victims get access to justice faster amid devastating years-long waits for trial dates. Officials also hope it will stop criminals “gaming” the courts system by picking a jury trial in the hope that long delays will mean distressed victims will end up dropping out.

Under the overhaul, those who are accused of “either way” offences – crimes that can either be heard in a Magistrates Court or the more serious Crown Court – will either be heard by magistrates or in a new court with a judge alone. The new court division will be called ‘Swift Courts” and is estimated to take 20% less time than a jury trial.

Juries will still remain for the most serious crimes including rape, murder, kidnap, rioting, terrorism and robbery, which are known as “indictable” offences and must be heard in the Crown Court.

Announcing plans in the Commons today, David Lammy – the Justice Secretary and Deputy PM – told MPs: “These reforms are bold, but they’re necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences.

“We now face an emergency in the courts and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

“This is a problem that has taken years to build up. It will take years to fix. The changes I’m proposing will require legislation, it will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect.

“But we are pulling every possible lever to move to in a positive direction and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains.”

In a seemingly last minute change – following a major backlash – “either way” offences that are expected to receive a sentence of more than three years will be heard with a jury.

Those likely to get a three-year sentence will have their case heard by a judge alone, while those expected to get less than three years will have their fate decided by a magistrate. Appeals in the magistrates court will also be restricted.

Magistrates are volunteers who hear cases in courts in their community and are widely considered to better represent the diversity of the public. They will be given more powers to hand down jail sentences of up to 18 months – with potential for this to go up to 24 months if necessary. This is up from their current 12-month sentencing power.

Elsewhere, complicated financial and fraud cases will be heard by judges alone where appropriate.

Waits for jury trials can take years, while cases in magistrates courts can be done and dusted within weeks or months. Currently, 90% of criminal cases are currently dealt with by magistrates and 3% proceed to a jury trial in the Crown, while 7% don’t go trial as the defendant pleads guilty. After the reforms, it is expected that, of the 3% that currently get a jury trial, around 1% will go to the magistrates, 0.5% will go to “Swift Courts” and 1.5% will remain in jury trial

The shift to a three-year cut off point comes after senior legal figures reacted with fury to a leaked memo that suggested sentences of up to five years would lose their right to a jury trial.

The Labour government has warned that doing nothing is not an option amid record delays in the courts system. It inherited a justice system in deep crisis from the Tories, with pressure across the courts, the prison service and the probation service.

Currently, almost 80,000 cases are waiting to be heard in the Crown Courts – where the most serious trials take place – and is set to hit 100,000 by 2028. The backlog has left victims waiting in angst for trial dates that are sometimes scheduled up to four years in the future.

In July, Sir Brian Leveson’s landmark review into the courts system recommended that some people charged with more serious crimes should lose their automatic right to a trial by jury.

He proposed that more than 150 offences – such as sexual grooming, child abduction or causing death by careless driving – should be tried in a new “Crown Courts Bench Division” (CCBD), with two magistrates and a judge, instead of in front of a jury.

But the Government’s response to the review goes beyond his recommendations, with plans for cases in the CCBD to be heard by a judge alone. The Government will call it’s new division, “Swift Courts”.

Concerns have been raised about the impact on ethnic minority defendants, who already face disproportionate outcomes in the criminal justice system.

Mr Lammy’s landmark review in 2017 itself described juries as a “success story of our justice system”. He wrote that the open discussion of juries “both deters and exposes prejudice or unintended bias”.

Sir Brian will complete another report, to be published next year, on the efficiency of courts, including how to better use technology to deliver modern courts.

After today’s announcement, Sir Brian said: “In more than fifty years working in the criminal justice system, I have never seen pressure on the courts at such an unacceptable level. The rising backlog in the Crown Court means victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting months, sometimes years, for cases to come to trial – unable to move on with their lives. It is no exaggeration to say that the system stands on the brink of collapse.”

He said his second report “will examine measures to overhaul governance, strengthen collaboration between agencies, reform case management in the courts, and harness smarter technology to drive meaningful change across the criminal justice system”, adding: “These improvements are part of the package but I repeat they would not, on their own, be sufficient to change the overall position.”