The pressure on the Crown Court is undeniable. But proposals to restrict jury trials would reshape criminal justice in England and Wales, and lasting reform must command the confidence of defendants, practitioners and the public.
A question for criminal justice
The future of jury trial remains unresolved. In July the Prime Minister indicated that his instincts were not to reduce jury trials, but that has not translated into a formal withdrawal. At the time of writing, the Courts and Tribunals Bill remains at Report Stage.
The proposals would change case allocation, early advice and the forum in which guilt or innocence is decided. They would also alter a safeguard that supports public confidence in criminal justice.
What the Bill proposes
The Bill would:
- remove a defendant’s right to elect Crown Court trial for triable either-way offences;
- create a Crown Court Bench Division for judge-alone trials of either-way cases expected to attract a sentence of three years or less;
- permit judge-alone trials in suitably technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases;
- increase magistrates’ sentencing powers; and
- replace the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court with a permission stage and a more limited hearing.
Indictable-only offences would remain with juries. Bench Division allocation would generally depend on likely sentence rather than the defendant’s choice. Judges would give reasons for verdicts and appeals would go to the Court of Appeal.
The backlog demands action
Government figures recorded more than 78,000 open Crown Court cases in September 2025, over twice the number at the end of 2019. Average waits had risen beyond a year and more than 6,000 cases had been waiting for at least two years. Those delays affect everyone involved and place sustained pressure on criminal lawyers.
The Government says judge-alone trials would be at least 20% shorter and its wider reforms could save around 27,000 Crown Court sitting days a year by 2028-29. Its breakdown attributes about 5,000 days to the Bench Division and 200 to judge-alone financial trials. The largest projected saving comes from removing defendants’ ability to elect Crown Court trial.
Efficiency cannot be the only test
Faster justice matters, but speed alone cannot decide where and how a person is tried. Reform must also protect fairness, participation and confidence in the outcome.
The proposed three-year threshold would require an assessment of likely sentence before the evidence has been tested. Solicitors would need to advise on allocation while considering disputed facts, possible changes to the indictment, previous convictions and sentencing guidelines. Although the Bill allows representations and reallocation, each additional decision may create argument, delay and uncertainty.
Moving work away from juries will not make it disappear. Magistrates’ courts would retain more cases, judges would take on fact-finding in the Bench Division and practitioners would navigate new allocation and appeal procedures. Shifting pressure elsewhere will not provide a durable solution.
Why criminal defence solicitors should care
The practical effects would begin with the first instructions. Clients will want to know who will decide their case, whether they can challenge that decision and how it may affect the trial. Explaining a system in which likely sentence influences mode of trial, without limiting the eventual sentence, will require careful advice.
The changes could also affect case strategy, preparation and legal aid remuneration. If the Government proceeds, practitioners must help shape the training, procedural rules, funding and time allowed for representations.
Work with the profession on practical reform
The proposed restrictions on jury trial would fundamentally change our justice system and risk having a detrimental effect on access to justice. The CLSA is also concerned about removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. Together, these measures could weaken important safeguards for defendants. We continue to believe that the proposals should be withdrawn.
That does not mean defending the status quo. The backlog requires urgent action on court capacity, buildings and technology, prisoner production, listing, early case preparation and funding for criminal defence. Removing the financial cap on Crown Court sitting days is welcome, but effective hearings still require enough judges, advocates, solicitors and court staff.
Criminal defence solicitors understand where cases stall and why hearings become ineffective. Working with practitioners offers the best chance of designing reforms that work in court, retain public confidence and improve access to justice.
Jury trial is too important to be reduced to administrative convenience. Reform should strengthen the legitimacy and efficiency of the justice system. The CLSA will continue to speak up for criminal defence solicitors and for a fair, properly resourced system.