The Birmingham Law Society Criminal Law Committee has published a detailed position statement responding to the Government’s proposed reforms to jury trials and related changes to the criminal courts.
While recognising the urgent need to address court backlogs and delays for victims, the Society concludes that restricting the right to trial by jury will not resolve the underlying causes of delay. Drawing on practitioner experience and available evidence, the paper highlights that backlogs are driven by long-term underinvestment, shortages of judges and criminal advocates, operational failures such as delays in producing prisoners to court, and pressures created by the erosion of criminal legal aid.
The Society also raises serious concerns about the constitutional, equality, and operational risks of judge-only trials, as well as the proposed expansion of magistrates’ sentencing powers and restrictions on appeals from magistrates’ courts. The position statement emphasises that these measures risk increasing custody rates, reducing safeguards against error, and placing further strain on already overstretched courts.
The Society calls instead for sustained, evidence-based investment in judicial sitting days, court infrastructure, staffing, and legal aid as the most effective means of reducing delay and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Matt O’Brien, President of Birmingham Law Society and Chair of its Criminal Law Committee, said, “Everyone agrees that delays in the criminal courts are unacceptable and that victims deserve timely justice. But removing juries is not the solution. The evidence from practitioners across the system is clear: the backlog is caused by underinvestment, staffing shortages, and operational failures—not by jury trials. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of public confidence in our justice system. Weakening it, while simultaneously expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers and restricting appeal rights, risks reducing fairness and accountability without addressing the real problems. The answer lies in properly resourced courts, sufficient sitting days, and a sustainable criminal justice system—not in dismantling long-standing safeguards.”