David wrote about this proposal a week ago. At the time, UK Justice Minister David Lammy was proposing to get rid of a massive backlog of cases by limiting jury trials to only those cases with an expected sentence of more than five years. Cases with sentences less than five years would be handled by a single judge.
Yesterday, Lammy presented his proposal to Parliament which would have to pass this plan before it can take effect. But his proposal has been softened a bit.
In a statement to Parliament, David Lammy, the justice secretary, said he would create new “swift courts” for defendants facing a likely prison sentence of three years or less, where judges alone would decide on their guilt or innocence.
Mr. Lammy called the proposed changes, which have to be approved by lawmakers, “bold but necessary,” and added, “Jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offenses.”
The proposals would not apply to crimes such as murder, rape and robbery, Mr. Lammy said, arguing that Britain’s current jury system was out of step with comparable countries and saying that the changes were necessary to deal with an “emergency” in the courts and to ensure justice for victims.
So instead of limiting this to cases with sentences up to five years, Lammy is now suggesting it should only apply in cases with potential sentences up to 3 years.
Still, as David pointed out previously, the right to a jury trial has been part of the English system since the Magna Carta. Abandoning that now seems like a pretty dramatic move, one that Lammy himself has vocally opposed in the past.
“Allowing a single judge, operating in an under-resourced system, to decide guilt in a serious and potentially life-changing case is a dramatic departure from our shared values,” Brett Dixon, vice president of the Law Society of England and Wales, a lawyers advocacy group, said in a statement...
In 2017, Lammy, while serving in the opposition as shadow justice secretary, conducted his own review of bias in the courts and found juries were the part of the criminal justice system most consistently free of racial prejudice.
“Debate and deliberation acts as a filter for prejudice,” his report, known as the Lammy Review, found, whereas a single judge making decisions alone concentrates power in ways that might amplify rather than check individual bias.
“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea,” Lammy tweeted in 2020 in criticism of jury overhaul proposals being considered by the then-Conservative government.
Lammy has apparently deleted his tweets defending the jury system.
@DavidLammy Deleting tweets is poor showing … pic.twitter.com/b4PpCvHLKL
— Me (@nickyboy1886) December 3, 2025
Here in the US, the right to a trial by jury is part of the Bill of Rights so it won't be changing...ever. But Canada has a system like the one the UK is now considering. Like Lammy's original proposal, only defendants facing an expected sentence of greater than 5 years can opt for a jury trial.
Finally, it's worth noting that the UK really has put itself in a bind here. With a backlog of 80,000 cases that is still growing, the idea of a speedy trial is now a thing of the past. Even serious cases can take 4-5 years to go to trial which means no justice for victims and no punishment for perpetrators. The UK really does have to do something. But is this going to even work?
Kirsty Brimelow, vice chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, an association representing senior lawyers, said she was skeptical that the government’s plan would significantly reduce the backlog.
“The delays are not caused by juries,” she said, “but by underinvestment and cuts to investment in the criminal justice system.”
If you don't have enough judges or lawyers to handle these cases, which the UK does not, then getting rid of juries doesn't really solve the problem. Watch this clip featuring a UK lawyer who says this won't fix the problem.
This is utterly DAMNING for David Lammy.
— Lee Harris (@addicted2newz) December 2, 2025
"We are not looking to convict people as quickly as possible, we are looking for justice."
A Barrister clinically dismantles David Lammy's disgraceful decision to scrap jury trials.
Watch until the end.
It wont even fix the backlog. pic.twitter.com/gLrAGVeLjP
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member