A Defining Moment for Criminal Justice

As a criminal defence solicitor of some 25 years, I have stood beside countless individuals facing the most serious allegations imaginable. In those moments – when liberty, reputation, and sometimes entire futures hang in the balance – one principle has always stood firm: the right to trial by jury. It is not an administrative convenience. It is not a historical relic. It is a living, breathing safeguard that sits at the heart of our criminal justice system.

The Government’s recent proposals to curb the right to jury trial, particularly those emerging from the Leveson review, represent a pivotal moment. We are told these reforms are necessary to reduce the backlog in the criminal courts. We are told that efficiency demands change. But when did speed become more important than justice? When did we decide that the solution to systemic underinvestment was to dilute one of our most fundamental protections?

There is no doubt that the criminal courts are under immense pressure. Delays are unacceptable. Complainants wait years for closure. Defendants endure prolonged uncertainty. Families on all sides suffer. But let’s be clear: the backlog was not caused by juries. It was caused by years of court closures, cuts to judicial resources, underfunding, and administrative failures.

Reforming the justice system is necessary. Eroding the right to trial by jury is not. If we truly believe in fairness, transparency, and public confidence, then we must look elsewhere for solutions.

Why Trial by Jury Is a Fundamental Right

Trial by jury is not a procedural luxury. It is a constitutional principle woven into the fabric of our legal history. For centuries, it has acted as a buffer between the individual and the immense power of the State. Twelve ordinary citizens, drawn from the community, collectively determine guilt or innocence. That is not symbolism. That is democracy in action.

Historically, the jury emerged as a protection against arbitrary power. It ensured that decisions about liberty were not made solely by representatives of the Crown. It reflected community standards, common sense, and collective judgment. Even today, juries bring something uniquely valuable to the courtroom: diversity of thought, lived experience, and independence.

As defence lawyers, we often see firsthand how powerful that safeguard can be. A jury listens not only to the legal arguments but to the human story. They weigh credibility, context, and nuance. They are not beholden to political pressures or institutional constraints. They do not bring cynicism borne of years of repetition or a disregard for the average citizen.  Their verdict represents society’s voice.

Removing or restricting jury trials risks concentrating authority in fewer hands. However capable and impartial judges may be, and I have the utmost respect for the judiciary, the symbolic and practical shift is profound. Justice seen to be done matters just as much as justice done. Public confidence depends on transparency and participation.

If we begin to treat jury trial as expendable, we chip away at something far greater than courtroom procedure. We chip away at the public’s role in holding the State to account.

The Reality of the Criminal Court Backlog

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The delays are real. Victims wait years to give evidence. Defendants live under a cloud of suspicion long before their day in court. Witness memories fade. Anxiety festers. Justice delayed can indeed become justice denied.

But how did we reach this point? The backlog did not emerge overnight. Over the past decade, we have witnessed widespread court closures. Funding for the criminal justice system has been repeatedly reduced. Recruitment of judges has lagged behind demand. Experienced practitioners have left publicly funded work due to financial pressures. The infrastructure has been stretched to breaking point.

Then came the pandemic. Court operations slowed dramatically. Social distancing requirements reduced courtroom capacity. Trials were postponed. While emergency measures were introduced, they were never sufficient to counteract years of prior underinvestment.

The result is a system overwhelmed not because juries exist, but because the machinery supporting them has been systematically weakened. It is akin to removing seats from a theatre and then blaming the audience for the crowding.

If we are serious about solving the backlog, we must confront its true causes. Structural underfunding. Insufficient judicial appointments. Inadequate court facilities. Administrative inefficiencies. These are the fault lines beneath the surface.

Curtailing jury trials may create the illusion of action. But it does nothing to repair the foundations.

At the time of writing, the Government has announced increased funding to ensure our courts can run to full capacity for the next year, with a funding agreement in place for the next three years.  This is welcome news and a bold step along the way to clearing the backlogs.  The fact such a step is necessary, and the fact it is coming many years after the crisis emerged, means that the scale of underfunding has been recognised.  Adequate funding has always been the solution.  Reducing the right to jury trials is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Why Limiting Jury Trials Is the Wrong Solution

When a system is under strain, the temptation is to reach for the quickest visible fix. Limiting jury trials may appear to offer that. Fewer jurors to summon. Fewer logistical complications. Potentially shorter trials. On a spreadsheet, it might even look efficient. But justice is not a production line, and criminal trials are not factory outputs.

The idea that we must choose between efficiency and fairness presents a false dichotomy. It assumes that the presence of a jury is the primary driver of delay. In reality, delays arise from listing pressures, lack of available judges, insufficient courtroom space, disclosure failures, and administrative breakdowns. A judge sitting alone cannot hear a case if there is no courtroom available. A trial cannot proceed if there is no prosecutor assigned or no defence counsel available. A defendant cannot be tried if they have not been transported to court.

There is also a deeper risk. The jury represents ordinary citizens participating directly in the administration of justice. Remove that element and you centralise authority. Even the perception that the State is judging individuals without meaningful public involvement can erode trust. In serious criminal cases, where liberty is at stake, public legitimacy is not optional. It is essential.

Will judges be accountable for their verdicts?  Requiring judges to try defendants in all but the most serious cases will dramatically enlarge their existing role and level of responsibility.  Will the present judiciary welcome that increased level of pressure?  Some might, many will not.  Verdicts reached in difficult cases will be questioned.  At present, the jury shields the judiciary from political and media backlash by dispersing the responsibility for verdicts across twelve anonymous citizens.  Under the present proposals, local judges, with a reputation for convicting / acquitting may well come under attack.  This is not difficult to imagine in a world where our national tabloids can run “Enemies of the People” headlines seemingly without any regulatory condemnation.  The necessary sense of deference may not exist anymore.

Judge-only trials may be appropriate in very limited, exceptional circumstances. But expanding them as a routine response to administrative backlog sets a troubling precedent. Once a right is diluted, restoring it becomes far more difficult. The slow erosion of safeguards rarely happens overnight; it happens incrementally, justified by necessity.

We should not allow temporary operational pressures to redefine permanent constitutional principles.

Rod Hayler is a Solicitor and Managing Director of Old Bailey Solicitors. If you have been accused of a criminal offence and need legal advice, please contact Old Bailey Solicitors at 0207 8464 999 and select 1 for new enquiries or email us at [email protected]

Practical Alternatives to Reduce the Backlog

If the Government genuinely wishes to reduce the criminal court backlog, there are practical, effective measures available. Measures that address the root causes rather than trimming away fundamental rights.

Opening More Courtrooms

One of the most immediate steps would be to increase courtroom capacity. Over recent years, numerous courts have been closed in the name of efficiency savings. Those closures have had lasting consequences. Physical space matters. A trial cannot proceed without a courtroom, no matter how many judges or advocates are available.

Reopening closed courts or utilising suitable public buildings as temporary courtrooms – as was done during the pandemic – would immediately increase listing capacity. It is a tangible, measurable solution. More rooms mean more trials. It is as straightforward as that.

Investing in physical infrastructure demonstrates commitment. It says that justice is not an afterthought but a priority deserving of resources.

Appointing and Funding More Judges

A courtroom without a judge is merely an empty space. The backlog cannot be reduced without sufficient judicial capacity. Recruitment must be accelerated, and the conditions of service must be attractive enough to draw experienced practitioners to the bench.

The judiciary has worked tirelessly under immense strain. But there are simply not enough judges to meet the volume of cases awaiting trial. Expanding judicial numbers is not radical—it is practical. It acknowledges reality.

Temporary appointments, extended sitting days, and better support for part-time judges can also ease the burden. These measures address delay directly, without diminishing defendants’ rights.

Ensuring Effective Prisoner Transport Services

This may seem like a minor operational detail, but it is anything but. Administrative hearing and trials are frequently delayed because defendants are not transported to court on time. Prisoner escort services are contracted to deliver individuals to court promptly. When they fail to do so, entire days of court time can be lost.

Imagine the waste: a judge, a jury panel, advocates, witnesses—all assembled and ready—only for the case to be adjourned because the defendant has not arrived. The financial and human cost is enormous.

Enforcing compliance with transport contracts, imposing penalties for repeated failures, and improving logistical coordination would prevent avoidable delays. It is an unglamorous fix, perhaps, but a highly effective one.

Investing in Court Staff and Infrastructure

Justice does not function on judges and juries alone. Behind every trial stands a network of administrative staff, listing officers, clerks, legal advisers, and digital systems. Chronic understaffing leads to listing errors, delayed paperwork, and inefficiencies that ripple through the system.

Digital case management systems must be reliable and properly supported. Disclosure processes require adequate resources. Prosecutors and defence teams must have sufficient time and funding to prepare cases thoroughly and efficiently.

In short, the justice system requires investment – not retrenchment.

Justice in Its Most Participatory Form

The conversation about backlog reduction should not be framed as a battle between tradition and modernity. It should be framed as a question of priorities. Do we believe that access to a fair trial by jury is worth funding? Do we consider it central to our democracy, or merely convenient when times are good?

There is a better path forward—one that combines efficiency with principle. By reopening courtrooms, appointing more judges, strengthening administrative support, and enforcing operational accountability, we can address delays without compromising rights.

Political will is the missing ingredient. Meaningful reform requires commitment to sustained investment. It requires acknowledging that the justice system cannot run on goodwill alone. It requires recognising that the cost of protecting fundamental rights is not a burden, but a responsibility.

As a defence lawyer, I see the human consequences of delay every day. I also see the reassurance that a jury provides to those who stand accused. Twelve members of the public listening carefully, deliberating thoughtfully, and delivering a collective verdict—this is not inefficiency. It is justice in its most participatory form.

We should be strengthening that principle, not narrowing it.