From the perspective of those defending clients, this move undermines one of the most important safeguards in our criminal justice system: the right to be judged by a jury of peers. Juries bring personal, local community-based judgment and a diversity of lived experience which is vital when evaluating a defendant’s credibility, the context of their behaviour, or subtle evidential nuances. Judges, no matter how experienced, cannot replicate that collective lay perspective that helps protect against systemic bias, case hardening and the risk of over-legalism.

Broadening judge-only trials will disproportionately affect vulnerable people, those from minority backgrounds, or individuals without resources. The removal of a jury layer risks eroding public confidence in fairness and the impartiality of verdicts.

Lammy argues the reforms respond to an acute backlog, reportedly nearly 80,000 Crown Court cases, and that victims deserve swifter justice. However, many of us in the legal profession have been saying for years both to this administration and the last that the backlog stems not from the use of juries but from chronic underfunding, understaffing and insufficient court resources.

Shortage of judges, magistrates and working courtrooms

As a defence lawyer, one cannot ignore the human and structural constraints: there simply aren’t enough judges, magistrates or properly functioning courtrooms to make these reforms operational immediately. Across the country many magistrates’ courts remain under-staffed and some Crown Court rooms sit empty for whole weeks because no judge can be allocated. Establishing “swift courts” would require substantial recruitment of judges, magistrates, clerks and administrative staff plus the refurbishment or expansion of court estate. In addition where are all the prosecutors and defence lawyers going to come from? Realistically, even with aggressive hiring and investment, it could take years before the system has capacity to administer judge-only trials at scale, meaning many cases may still lag or face delays.

Risk of industrial action by lawyers

There is a real risk that lawyers, both defence solicitors and barristers, may respond with industrial action should the reforms proceed. Already, many in my profession view the proposals as a radical erosion of defendant rights and a blow to the junior criminal Bar, which could suffer from loss of jury-trial experience. This could prompt walkouts or refusal to take on judge-only cases. Such disruption would exacerbate the backlog crisis rather than solve it.

As a defence lawyer, the concern isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about the quality and integrity of justice. The risk of miscarriages of justice, diminished public trust, and erosion of a foundational safeguard outweighs any purported benefit in speed.

For centuries, the criminal justice system in England and Wales has been regarded as the envy of the world. Its combination of independent judges, jury trials, and procedural safeguards has been exported and emulated in numerous common law jurisdictions, from Hong Kong to the Caribbean, and continues to set a benchmark for fairness and accountability. Emerging jurisdictions such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi have actively adopted aspects of the England and Wales common law system, particularly in their free zones and financial courts, precisely because of its reputation for fairness, clarity, and procedural rigor. The jury system, in particular, is celebrated as a cornerstone of participatory justice, ensuring that ordinary citizens have a direct role in upholding the rule of law. As a defence practitioner, it is deeply concerning that Lammy’s proposals risk dismantling one of the system’s most admired features. By reducing the role of juries, the reforms could weaken the very elements of impartiality and public trust that make the UK system a global model, potentially undermining international confidence in our legal standards.