PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Criminal Court Reform - 2 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

“deny or delay right or justice.”

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. 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. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.

His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”

In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries

“act as a filter for prejudice”,

but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?

It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials

“would be a wholly draconian act”?

It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a

“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?

Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?

Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.

And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]

Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.

The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.

Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.

Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.

Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?

The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.

I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.

The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:

“It was a political decision.”

I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.

None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.

Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.

While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?

The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.

When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.

I call the Mother of the House.

The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?

I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about.

The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent.

I understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited a disastrous situation in the criminal justice system. A huge backlog was left by the austerity of the Conservatives, so I have no truck with them. However, does he fear, as I do, that restricting trial by jury will put a certain class of people in judgment over the rest of us, and that the check and balance on that is that a jury can be drawn from those I would describe as working-class people? Does he fear that we will create an “us” and “them” in the criminal justice system by taking away people’s right to go to trial by jury?

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, but I remind him that the vast majority of these individuals will be tried by magistrates. The historical system we have is actually an aspect of the right in clause 39 of Magna Carta to be tried by one’s peers. Importantly, they are people who live in every neighbourhood in our country and who volunteer their efforts.

When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads:

“I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning:

“It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.”

Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?

I understand the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right that our courts have been starved of funds for too long, but he knows that, despite the extra investment we are putting in and the investment we got in the spending review for new courts in places such as Blackpool, this will take considerable time. We have asked Sir Brian to reflect, and he is one of our most eminent judges. Would it really be right to ask the victims to wait a decade until we have fixed the system? It cannot be. For all the reasons that Sir Brian reflects on in his report, we have to chuck everything at this. We need more investment, reform and modernisation, which we are doing.

Any of us who has supported a constituent in a rape trial will take no lectures from the Conservatives about how they managed our courts. There is clearly a challenge here. The worry for many of us is whether the Justice Secretary’s prescription is the solution; as he points out, juries are involved in less than 3% of all criminal cases. It is difficult to see how this measure, with all the challenges it may bring for justice and fairness, particularly for some of our minority communities, will address the backlog. Lord Leveson himself pointed out that increasing sitting days would not be a solution unless we had the barristers and solicitors. Can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that there will be funding for the legal aid required to ensure that every defendant has decent representation?

I remind my hon. Friend that we are increasing the uplift for barristers and their fees by £34 million. We have also increased legal aid, with £92 million for our solicitors. Because we need a pipeline of criminal lawyers, we have a match-funded scheme for pupillages so that we see the next generation of young people from all backgrounds becoming our criminal legal aid lawyers.

Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; if they were, we would not see similar extended delays in the magistrates courts, which have a record backlog of 361,000 cases. The cause is not just pupillages, but legal advisers in magistrates courts. Given that some of these cases with potentially longer sentences will move to the magistrates courts, what additional investment will go into them so that we do not just see the problem move from the Crown court to the magistrates court and see victims wait just as long there?

That is why we are putting money into legal advisers and why we are growing the magistracy. There is not anything like the backlog that exists in our Crown courts in our magistrates courts, so the question is: should we leave it as a year, or could our magistrates do more? I think 18 months is right in terms of the sentencing threshold.

I need to be honest: the prospect of citizens in our country being put away in jail for up to three years without the benefits of a trial by jury sends a chill through my heart. I gently say that no Government should ever govern as if they will be in power for ever. Those on the Front Bench denounce members of Reform as Putin’s pals—I think that is a fair description. Does the Justice Secretary want to think again? Imagine if Putin’s pals, as they are described, were in government in this country and people could get put away for three years without trial by jury. How would they use that? Is that not a frightening prospect? If we make these changes under pressure and hand them on to forces that would take things even further, would that not concern the Justice Secretary?

Clearly, my hon. Friend would accept that justice is not being served now. I simply would not equate either our magistrates or our independent judiciary with anything like what we see under Putin’s Russia.

Nobody would disagree with the Lord Chancellor’s diagnosis—the criminal courts are in crisis. It is the treatment that is in dispute. The question is whether the watering down of jury trials will be the solution, when in fact the problem is a lack of judges, court space and infrastructure, and inefficiencies in the system. Crucially, it is about a lack of appropriately trained defence and prosecution counsel who can deal with the complexities of these cases. Is this not a case of the Government choosing to prioritise other areas of spending, such as welfare, over our courts system?

The hon. Gentleman’s party did not come up with any solutions, and the backlog continued to rise. We commissioned an independent review, led by one of the country’s most eminent judges. Having reflected on that review, we are getting on with the business of recognising what he said: there is not a silver bullet, we have to do it all, and we are building on the reform that he asked us to do.

May I welcome the additional money for the criminal legal aid advocates and for more pupillages? If we are to rely more on judges, often sitting alone, is there not a need for greater transparency with regard to the selection of those judges, even to the point of individual selection on individual cases? I wrote to the Secretary of State this morning on behalf of a number of our members about a particular instance of the disappearance of a judge. I would be grateful if he could read that letter and possibly meet a group of MPs concerned about that matter.

I will read that letter and commit to a meeting with my right hon. Friend and other MPs, either with me or with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. He is absolutely right; transparency is core. When I looked at this issue in the Lammy review, I was very concerned that too often there was no transcript of what happened in our magistrates courts and Crown courts and that it was not easy. That is absolutely part of what we are now investing in, particularly with AI technology, and we will come forward with it.

I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Caernarfon justice centre is only 16 years old, but the roof leaks when it rains, and the heating does not work. Let me list some of the root causes for criminal courts processing fewer cases: high workloads, staff shortages and inexperience, poor administration, crumbling buildings. How does the Justice Secretary think that undermining one of the basic tenets of English and Welsh law will be a solution to those problems?

I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait.

I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:

“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.

In his report, Sir Brian Leveson made a number of recommendations to reduce the Crown court backlog. Many of those recommendations are welcome, but curtailing the right to a jury trial is not one of them. Will the Secretary of State instruct his Department to publish the modelling it will have undertaken, so that we can see how much of an effect on the backlog each individual recommendation will have, and this House can take a view on the efficacy of his legislation before we vote on it?

I undertake that there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation.

The governance of jury trials has changed considerably over time—dramatically so in the 19th century, and again in the 1970s. In both cases, that was to improve public access to justice. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that if our traditions are to endure, including our legal traditions, they need to adapt?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Demand is soaring. Quite rightly, we are asking our police to arrest more, and we all know that smartphones, DNA, and phenotyping to tell the colour of a person’s eyes increase the workload. We have to reform the system, or we will break it.

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but we have a proud history of juries in this country. If juries are to be suspended for cases in which a sentence of less than three years is expected in order to clear the backlog, will that just be for a limited time, and when will normal jury service be resumed?

For the reasons of complexity that Sir Brian has set out, and because the process of passing legislation means that I think we will only see the numbers starting to fall by the next general election, no, this change has to be permanent.

Given that the Bar Council has said it has seen “no evidence” that removing the right to elect to have a jury trial will significantly reduce the Crown court backlog, and that both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have said that the real cause of delays is years of underfunding and reduced sitting days, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are pursuing the removal of jury trials without publishing any modelling to show that juries—rather than chronic under-resourcing—are responsible for backlogs? Will he release the evidence base underpinning this proposed reform? Releasing impact assessments after the reform is made will be too late.

I say to my hon. Friend, who has tremendous expertise in these areas, that the evidence is contained in Sir Brian’s very lengthy review. That review looks at all the issues and says it is likely that the new division within the Crown court and the changes to magistrates courts will speed up the process by 20%.

The idea that we have to scrap jury trials to save jury trials is simply farcical. A legal framework 800 years old is being upended, and not to reduce backlogs or save money; this is a reframing of rights and of where power lies, taking power away from the people. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that jury trials—being judged by one’s peers—protects the vulnerable and enables fairness, and that as the Mother of the House said, this decision will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice?

Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.

I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?

I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.

We are supposed to have a legal system we are proud of, and the purpose of jury service is to ensure a fair and impartial justice system. Although there are dire backlogs in Crown court hearings in England, as well as delays in Northern Ireland, would the Lord Chancellor consider other options—such as fully funding and resourcing the system to address backlogs—as opposed to removing a civic obligation that people in this country believe in and have upheld for the sake of a fair judicial system?

The evidence is in Sir Brian’s review. This is an independent review, and I will read once again what Sir Brian has said:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

I welcome the £550 million investment in victims, but trial by a jury of your peers is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this country. Court backlogs are a serious problem—I know that first hand—but the evidence shows that this is because of issues such as a chronic lack of funding, rather than the use of juries. Surely the Secretary of State can see that it would be a grave error to erode a principle that has stood the test of hundreds of years and is widely regarded as producing the fairest outcomes, including by his own 2017 review, all for the sake of time-saving and cost-saving measures that might in practice save neither time nor cost.

I recognise the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s remarks, but I have really reflected on what Sir Brian has said. There is no silver bullet in this area—I am not suggesting that the changes we are making to the threshold for a jury trial will fix this entire problem. It will take more investment, and we are making that investment. It will take modernisation, particularly in relation to transcripts and audio, but it will also take reform. We have reformed the criminal justice system in the past; we can do so again in a way that is fair and right for everybody.

Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct.

I welcome the proposals to tackle the court backlogs and delays, which the previous Government did nothing to address. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that this Government will preserve the sanctity of jury trials, and that the proposed changes relate only to some either-way offences—those that are considered to be less serious and can therefore be properly dealt with by magistrates, who already deal with 90% of criminal cases?

Yes, I can. For every victim of a crime, the crime is serious, but the decisions that I am announcing at the Dispatch Box are about the length of sentences—about asking our magistrates to go up from one year to 18 months, and asking the new division in the Crown courts to deal with sentences of 18 months to three years.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that his policy of abolishing trial by jury in all but the most serious cases undermines the whole foundation of law and order in this country, and risks the further politicisation of our judicial system, with judges acting alone as the state and no longer being held to account by the people in the form of a jury?

No, I do not.

Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?

My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.

I appreciate the focus on victims, but has the Secretary of State considered the risks of removing juries when charges involve state or corporate victims if we are to preserve dissent, whistleblowing and protest? Given that big concerns have been raised about representation among judges, is he concerned about the potential for damaging attacks on, and politicisation of, individual judges and their decisions?

We must protect our judges, and there is a climate of increased concern about their security because of statements—some of them made in the House—that would undermine the independence of our judiciary.

The proposed new “swift courts” will mean that decisions regarding guilt will be made by judges alone, who will have received vital, inadmissible and potentially prejudicial evidence. Can the Secretary of State assure us that judges’ decisions are not influenced by inadmissible evidence, given the significant consequences for both victims and defendants involved in cases that are no longer eligible for jury trials? If this policy goes ahead, will he consider a non-extendable sunset clause?

I am grateful for that question, and I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point about evidence, but as I have said, I do not believe that a sunset clause would be right in this area because of the demand and the complexity to which Sir Brian has referred, and also because legislation will take some time. I hope to see the backlog reducing by the next election, but I do believe that these changes have to be permanent.

Tony Blair’s Administration put forward similar proposals, but were eventually forced to abandon them, thanks to opposition in the House and beyond. A similar coalition of opposition appears to be building up yet again. On the reply that the Justice Secretary has just given, may I urge him to reconsider the sunset clause, which might be the only way that he can get these proposals through the House?

I came out of practice at the beginning of the Tony Blair period, and the number of cases then was nowhere near what it is now. There was no backlog—cases could come on within a year—so the circumstances were vastly different, and we did not then commission a lengthy review to look at all these issues in the way we have today.

In September, I attended a roundtable meeting with survivors of child sexual exploitation, hosted by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and one of the key issues that they raised was the delays in court proceedings. It is unacceptable that perpetrators are not being brought to justice more quickly. I welcome these reforms, but how will we ensure that court delays are reduced as much as possible and perpetrators are brought to justice as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend is right. Implementing the recommendations, moving to legislation as soon as we can, continued investment in the court system, the concordat, and my obligation to bring about more sitting days are all important, as is the modernisation of our courts through, for instance, the use of AI and technology throughout the system. The discussion today is about our criminal courts, but we also need investment in our civil and family courts.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a practising barrister and a law firm owner.

Our centuries-old right to jury trial is not an ornament of the past. It is the living guarantee of a fair trial. It is the safeguard that ensures that no citizen is judged except by their peers. It is the cornerstone of our legal heritage, and the bedrock of public confidence in criminal justice. It must not be curtailed for administrative convenience, and let us be clear: curtailing jury trials will not cut the backlog, or, if it does, it will simply shift that backlog straight to the appeal courts. Why, then, have the Government chosen not to prioritise court capacity, judicial recruitment and proper case-management reform, but instead to curtail jury trials?

We are doing all of it, I would say. I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and his experience as a criminal practitioner, and of course I have heard a great many messages over the last few days from friends of mine who are at the Bar or are criminal legal aid solicitors. Change is hard, but the Government’s responsibility is to look at the whole system and at all that has been said, and to put victims at the centre. What I am not hearing in the Chamber from those who oppose what we are doing is what else can be done. What I am hearing is, “More money might fix this problem.” Sir Brian has made it clear that investment alone will not fix the problem, and it is not acceptable to ask victims to wait another decade for that investment to kick in.

I welcome the news that the Government will match-fund criminal barrister pupillages, and I agree that there should be a focus on opening up a career at the criminal Bar to even more young people from across society and from all socioeconomic backgrounds. What additional plans does the Lord Chancellor have to make law a more accessible sector for young people from all backgrounds?

The day I was called to the Bar, back in the mid-1990s, was a huge moment in my life. I came from a working-class, poorer background, raised by a single mother, and I am deeply saddened that over the last few years young people from all backgrounds have been put off from becoming criminal legal aid solicitors or barristers. We must do something about that, and I have found the money not only to raise fees for barristers and other lawyers in this area, but also to ensure that the next generation of lawyers comes through. I hope that is not lost in some of the misconceptions about jury trials.

The Justice Secretary blames the court backlog on a reduction in funding by the past Government, yet he plans to reduce access to jury trials permanently. Is not the truth of it that he does not want to fund courts because his Government have prioritised welfare for the few over justice for the many?

No. Absolutely not. We are implementing and building on the work of Sir Brian Leveson, and we are determined to bring the backlog down. It takes investment, it reform and modernisation.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. Residents in my constituency of Harlow are rightly concerned about the court backlog. Waiting six years for justice is not justice. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that these changes will bring down the court backlog, and can he reassure us that for the major crimes he spoke about, there will still be trial by jury?

I can confirm that the jury remains the cornerstone of our system, and must do for obvious reasons. I want to see the backlog coming down, but this is a mountain to climb, and that is why I have said that I want reductions by the next general election. The trend at the moment is upwards, and we have to throw everything at the problem if we are to solve it.

I have previously raised the case of my Woking constituent Dani, a victim of grooming and sexual abuse, who is having to wait more than six years for justice. Although I am concerned about these proposals from the Justice Secretary, I and others can probably be convinced if they do genuinely put the victims first without undermining our justice system. To persuade me, please will he agree to publish the impact assessment in full and let the Justice Committee fully scrutinise these proposals before a Bill is introduced?

As the hon. Member would expect, there will be an impact assessment at the point of legislation, and full scrutiny of these proposals both in this place and in the other place. I just say to him: listen to victims’ voices today, to our Victims’ Commissioner, and to the groups that support victims. They support these proposals because they know that, combined, they are our best attempt to recalibrate the system and bring it back to where it should be.

Justice is devolved to Northern Ireland, with the exception of the regulation of non-jury trials. On 9 June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said in a Committee of this place on the extension of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland that

“the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from those provisions”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 9 June 2025; c. 5.]

Is that still the Government’s mind?

Northern Ireland is of course in a special and unique position on this issue, and I am happy to get the appropriate Minister to meet the hon. Member and any colleagues to discuss these issues.

I am hoping that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Secretary can rule out any changes to inquests with a jury, which are required when the deceased has been detained by the state. These inquests are also subject to agonising delays for bereaved families. Given those delays, what plans does he have to address backlogs in the coroner’s court?

I am very grateful for the question, and I can rule that out. I am happy to have a Minister discuss with the hon. Member what we are doing in the coroner’s court.

I declare an interest as a practising criminal barrister. Before the Justice Secretary tears up clause 39 of Magna Carta, which guaranteed that no free person shall be imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of their peers, I ask him to consider that, when I was in the Crown court in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, a matter was delayed and adjourned because we did not have courtroom availability, so eliminating jurors will not solve the backlog in the way he has described, but it will erode public confidence in the principles that have protected our justice system for over 800 years. I accept that justice delayed is justice denied, but I am sure that he understands that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that can only be done through juries.

The hon. Member accepts that justice delayed is justice denied, but then does not come up with a solution. Does he respect Sir Brian Leveson and his work? Does he recognise that it is important that we reform the system, so that it is fit for purpose and for the next generation? Does he accept—he must, as a criminal practitioner—the huge demand, and the changes that we have seen in criminal practice since I qualified as a lawyer 30 years ago? Of course he does.

Having spent my professional life practising in the criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where we have had both jury trials and non-jury trials to deal with terrorist offences, I must say to the Justice Secretary that whatever the intellectual capacity of judges, they do not have the practical life experience of 12 jurors collectively, and that is what brings superior credibility to a jury verdict. Dissipating juries will strain the quality of our justice, particularly in circumstances where the presiding judge will have to decide on the admissibility of evidence, and then put from his mind evidence that he might have dismissed when reaching a verdict, but none the less convey to the public that justice has been seen to be done?

I am hugely respectful of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience in these areas. We do ask our judges to make life-changing decisions across a whole range of areas. I am the father of an adopted daughter, and believe me, there is no greater decision someone can make than to take a child away from its birth parents. Judges do have to make difficult judgments, and they do so with the assistance of those who give evidence before them. So I believe we can do this, and I just ask him to reflect on the three-year threshold and the sorts of crimes about which we are asking our magistracy and our judges to make those fine judgments.

The previous Government should hang their head in shame for leaving our judicial system—the courts, the backlog and the prison system—in such disarray. A 2022 survey of 373 legal professionals, conducted by barrister Keir Monteith KC and the University of Manchester, found that 56% of respondents had witnessed at least one judge acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant, while 52% had witnessed discrimination in judicial decision making, and concluded that there is

“institutional racism in the justice system”.

Given that the Justice Secretary now seeks to remove juries, does he foresee greater injustice, prejudice and racial discrimination in our courtrooms, and what steps is he taking to tackle the existing and likely increase in institutional racism?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.

That concludes the statement.

Royal Assent

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025