Justice Secretary and Deputy PM David Lammy recently made headlines when he was seen walking with Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, Sue Carr. This image of two prominent figures in the legal system walking side by side sparked discussions about the controversial Lammy reforms, which seek to restrict the right to jury trial. While ministers and MPs with legal qualifications have been quick to defend these reforms, claiming they are bold and essential, there are many who oppose them and believe they will do more harm than good.
As someone who has spent 11 years as a Resident Judge at a busy London court, I believe I have a unique perspective on this issue. And in my opinion, the government’s argument for these reforms falls short on both evidence and analysis. It also deliberately ignores practical solutions that would do much more to “restore trust” and “prevent collapse” in the criminal justice system.
One of the main arguments put forward by the government is that these reforms are necessary to restore public trust in the justice system. However, juries have consistently been one of the most trusted elements of the criminal justice system, even at a time when confidence in public institutions is low. By removing the responsibility for deciding verdicts from juries in a large category of cases, the government risks undermining this trust. And despite their claims, these reforms would not only apply to minor offenses, but also to more serious cases such as burglary, assault, and even cases involving death or serious injury caused by careless driving.
Transferring these decisions to judges may be described as “bold,” but it is unlikely to strengthen confidence in the system. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. The claim that these reforms are essential is also questionable. While the Leveson Review suggested that judge-only trials could reduce trial length by up to 20%, this projection is uncertain at best. And even if it were to save some time, it would not make a significant impact on the backlog of cases.
Furthermore, during the time it takes for judges to produce reasoned decisions, courtrooms would lie empty instead of being used for other trials. This is not a practical solution to the backlog issue. If we are going to make such a significant change to the jury system, which has been a crucial link between the courts and the communities they serve, then we need a far more compelling and rigorous justification.
Instead of scrapping the jury system, a more credible solution lies in supporting the judges, court staff, and advocates who already work within the crown courts. As we saw during the pandemic, these professionals were able to keep the system functioning even under extreme conditions. With adequate resources, they can do so again.
The experience of Woolwich Crown Court is a clear example of this. By October 2022, the backlog at Woolwich had reached around 1,200 cases, making it increasingly difficult to list cases within a year. To address this issue, judges and staff devised an intensive case-management strategy that involved reviewing every case four weeks before trial. This process was demanding and often unpopular, but it yielded immediate and striking results. Fundamentally flawed cases were resolved early, compromise pleas were negotiated, and trial dates were adjusted to accommodate advocates’ availability. As a result, the backlog steadily reduced over seven months.
Of course, this is just one court, but with proper funding for courts and advocates, the dedicated teams working in the crown courts could manage a short-term offensive that would make huge inroads into the existing backlog. And in the long term, there needs to be a sensible discussion about categorization. Governments have the right to determine where the line should be drawn between summary trial and trial by jury. However, this should not be done at the expense of long-held rights to jury trial.
It is ironic that successive governments have spent the last 30 years expanding the range of offenses that should carry a right to elect trial while simultaneously reducing court capacity. A consultation on a sensible approach to recategorization would identify suitable cases without threatening these rights.
In conclusion, the government’s argument for the Lammy reforms is weak and lacks proper evidence and analysis. Instead of scrapping the jury system, we should be supporting the professionals who work within the crown courts and finding practical solutions to address the backlog issue. And in the long term, there needs to be a sensible discussion about categorization, rather than sweeping changes that threaten long-held rights to jury trial. Let us work together to find solutions that truly “restore trust”
