There has been significant push-back from the legal community and from some Labour back-benchers, led by Karl Turner, a Solicitor and MP for Hull. “No justice without juries” is the rallying cry.
In fact, even now not all offences attract jury trial. “Summary only” offences are triable only in the magistrates court, even though they can have serious consequences. A teacher charged with common assault on a pupil cannot elect jury trial. Similarly a police officer charged with harassment without violence. These are potentially career-ending allegations. So the debate has always been: where should the line be drawn?
Leveson’s Blueprint
Sir Brian Leveson was asked in 2025 to produce a whole system review of criminal justice in the context of a backlog of crown court trials that is now over 80,000 cases and growing. He has produced two extensive reports, Part One in June 2025 and Part Two January 2026, 1,144 pages with 180 recommendations over 3 volumes. It is a well researched tome. It includes the first review of improving efficiency in the criminal justice system since, well, Sir Brian Leveson’s 2015 report entitled Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings!
Part 1 looks at policy reform and includes the controversial jury restriction provisions and has 45 distinct recommendations. Part 2 contains 135 recommendations on…improving efficiency in criminal proceedings. There are across the 180 proposals some excellent (often common sense) suggestions.
- Greater use of out of court disposals after arrest (Recommendation 1)
- Increased use of rehabilitation programs for addicts (6)
- Increasing credit for a guilty plea to 40% from 33% (27)
- More effective listing at courts (94 and 95)
- Prison vans can use bus lanes (129)
- Annual reviews of legal aid rates (154)
Leveson emphasises in a number of places that these recommendations were designed as a complete package and “not designed to be a ‘pick-n-mix’ of options.” (Part 2, Vol. 1, p. 63)
The Government’s Approach
Contrary to Lord Leveson’s entreaty, the Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026, appears to be a pick and mix approach re juries. The diagram below, published with the bill, is the easiest way to understand the proposals.
Compare and Contrast
Leveson Recommended:- Magistrates’ maximum sentence to stay at 12 months imprisonment
- Defendants retain the right of election to the Crown Court on “either way” offences
- Once in the Crown Court, cases likely to attract a sentence of 3 years or less would be directed to a “Bench Division” Court consisting of a Judge + 2 lay justices
- Magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers to be increased to 18 months or 2 years (via statutory instrument)
- No right of election to the Crown Court in either way matters – the Magistrates decide venue
- Those cases that do go to the Crown Court will be allocated to the Bench Court if the likely sentence will be less than 3 years on conviction – but trial by judge alone, no lay justices
Practical issues
In addition to principled objections to the removal of the right to elect jury trial, there are practical issues with the Bench Court – a few of which are:
- Written reasons for conviction/acquittal will have to be provided by judges in Bench Court cases—fertile new ground for appeals
- Judges will need additional time to draft those reasons, clawing back some of the time anticipated to be saved by dispensing with juries
- If, mid-trial, it emerges that sentence might exceed three years, the trial must stop and restart before a jury – more wasted time. Criminal practitioners know all too well that the true seriousness of a case can become clear only once evidence unfolds
Bench Division a Flawed Concept
Leveson’s proposals would have led to any either way case where the Defendant elected crown court trial and where the likely sentence was 3 years imprisonment or less going to the new Bench Court. That would include cases that the Magistrates were prepared to deal with, preserving the right to elect Crown Court trial (though not necessarily with a jury). It had what many regard as a safety net of two justices to add a lay element to decision making.
Lammy’s bill significantly reduces the volume of cases that will come before this new Bench Court as he removes the right of election and increases Magistrates Court Sentencing powers. The work for this court is likely to be limited to cases where the likely sentence is between 2 and 3 years.
Such is the complexity of these new courts and new procedural rules that have to be worked through that although the Bill is expected to be rushed through parliament, potentially being enacted as soon as April 2026, the Bench Court isn’t expected to start until 2028. All that work for cases where the likely sentence is 2 -3 years.
Is it worth it? I wonder if it will ever see the light of day, at least in this format.
The “Right” to Jury Trial
There is undoubtedly a problem in the Crown Court that Leveson has tried to address. Delays between plea and trial are not acceptable (although delays between arrest and charge is arguably a greater problem, rarely highlighted). Many practitioners and commentators say that juries are not the problem nor the cause of delay.
The Government, in a welcome development, has announced unlimited sitting days in the Criminal Courts.
So, whilst in my opinion the Bench Court is a flawed concept for the reasons set out above, even more fundamental is that removal of the right to elect jury trial in either way cases.
In many cases juries are better placed to work out where the truth lies and also to assess criminality. The word “reasonable”, for example, is scattered across legislation and case law. An example is whether force used in self defence was “reasonable”. A jury of 12, with diverse lived experiences, may be better equipped to get the right answer than a Judge alone.
Defendants from ethnic minorities may feel that they should be tried by peers from their community and not a Judge alone.
Then there are political cases. Some will recall the case of Clive Ponting in the 1980s. He revealed sensitive information regarding the sinking of an Argentinian ship in the Falklands war because he believed it was in the public interest. On a strict reading of the draconian Official Secrets Act at the time he had no defence. The jury acquitted and the law was changed. Think also of those charged with criminal damage to the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol a few years back. That case would go to a Bench Court under these proposals. Would a Judge acquit?
There is not an unfettered “right” to jury trial at present, as I set out at the beginning of this article, but removing it for a huge number of either way cases in the future is a step too far.
Increase sitting days and implement most of the remaining 179 recommendations in Leveson. Let’s see if that works before restricting jury trial, something that Lord Devlin famously described as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
Andrew Bishop, Vice Chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association February 2026