Burnham scraps controversial plans to curb jury trials

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has withdrawn the disputed proposal to restrict jury trials, according to a statement from his office. The measure, initially introduced by Sir Keir Starmer’s government, would have permitted judges to decide alone in cases expected to result in a sentence of less than three years. The Ministry of Justice said only serious fraud and financial offences would remain judge‑only, while thousands of mid‑level offences would be dealt with by unpaid magistrates sitting without a jury. Justice Secretary Alex Norris explained that he had reversed the plan after gauging the "strength of feeling" among stakeholders. Criminal lawyers welcomed the move, and the Conservatives described it as a "major victory" for those who campaigned to preserve trial by jury. The plan was first announced in December by former Justice Secretary David Lammy, following a recommendation in a wide‑ranging review of the courts system in England and Wales. The proposed reforms, which included cutting back on jury trials, were framed as a way to tackle the growing case backlog that has been worsening the courts crisis. The backlog—currently about 81,000 cases—has caused lengthy delays for defendants and victims. It surged after pre‑pandemic cuts and court closures during national lockdowns. Official forecasts suggest it could reach 100,000 before the next general election and, in a worst‑case scenario, could rise to treble that figure by 2035. Officials note that the backlog appears to be stabilising after the government pledged unlimited funding to hire additional judges for courts that would otherwise sit idle. Under Lammy’s original outline, jury trials would have been reserved for the most serious "indictable" offences—those automatically sent to Crown Court, such as murder and rape. Offences carrying a maximum sentence of three years or less would have been decided by a judge alone in Crown Court, while even lower‑level matters would have been dealt with in magistrates’ courts, removing defendants’ right to request a jury trial when they believed it offered the best chance of acquittal. The proposal sparked criticism across the criminal‑justice sector, with many opponents arguing that weakening the 800‑year‑old right to trial by jury would not resolve the backlog.