David Lammy is expected to back down from removing jury trials in England and Wales for all but the most serious charges of murder, manslaughter and rape, but trial by jury will still be radically reduced for more minor offences.
The UK government’s justice secretary said there had been “cabinet feedback” on the plans and suggested on Tuesday he was minded to follow the recommendation in a report by the retired senior judge Sir Brian Leveson that “either-way” offences likely to result in a sentence of three years or less should be dealt with by the magistrates courts or a new judge-only division.
A memo leaked last week had suggested Lammy was looking at going further, suggesting jury trials would be applicable only for public interest offences with possible prison sentences of more than five years, removing the ancient right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury.
Lammy has described the court backlog as a “courts emergency” that will surpass 100,000 outstanding cases, saying it is leaving victims waiting years for justice.
The proposals expected to be tabled by Lammy on Tuesday would be closer in line with the report by Leveson, who had suggested diverting more offences to magistrates courts or to a new intermediate court called the crown court bench division.
Speaking on Sky News, Lammy said: “Where should the threshold be? [Leveson] suggested it should be three years … and that’s what I’m looking at.”
That threshold would be likely to mean more serious offences beyond rape, murder and manslaughter would be looked at by juries, but lesser assaults, thefts and handling stolen goods could be dealt with by magistrates or judge-only trials.
The justice secretary suggested on Sky News that discussions in cabinet had led to the current proposals, raising the prospect there had been a cabinet backlash to such radical reforms.
Lammy dismissed it as a “process question” – but added: “I’m going to be making a statement to parliament later and setting out my view. There is a process by which you discuss with cabinet colleagues what you might be looking at. They feed back. You make a judgment.”
Asked if there had been a backlash, Lammy said: “Of course you discuss these things with cabinet colleagues. It’s on that basis that you reach a judgment, and I’ll be laying out that judgment later on.”
He said: “I also believe fundamentally in the jury system, and I thank the 300,000 or so people every year that play a role in our juries. It’s fundamental in our system. I’ve stood up for juries all of my life, fundamental belief in it. But I don’t want the system to collapse. I want it to continue.”
The proposals have faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals, including from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council, which said: “There is no need to curtail the right to a trial by jury – from both a principle and practical position.”
Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases and lesser “either way” offences when a judge deems it appropriate.
The Law Society of England and Wales said it had not seen any “real evidence” it would work to reduce the backlog. Keir Monteith KC, the criminal barrister who has raised issues of institutional racism to help quash the convictions of young black men, said: “Lammy’s 180 degree U-turn to replace juries with judges is not only unconstitutional and politically naive but it will create further unfairness and miscarriages of justice for black and minority ethnic defendants.”
According to the MoJ, nearly half of the cases in the backlog concern alleged violent and sexual offences, and only about 3% of criminal cases are heard with a judge and a jury.
Lammy also confirmed that two prisoners were still at large after being released in error. He told LBC he could not give details of the circumstances of the two prisoners.
• This article was amended on 2 December 2025 to clarify that the plans apply to the justice system in England and Wales.
