A leaked Ministry of Justice briefing circulated to Whitehall proposes limiting jury trials in England and Wales to murder, manslaughter, rape and a small set of cases meeting a public‑interest test, with most remaining Crown Court cases heard by a judge alone. Downing Street said on 25 November that no final decisions have been taken.
According to the document, a new lower tier within the Crown Court-the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD)-would try cases likely to attract sentences of up to five years without a jury. Separate proposals would allow judge‑only trials in complex fraud and financial cases where the judge considers the issues particularly technical and lengthy.
The leaked options go beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (Part 1, 9 July 2025), which recommended a CCBD made up of a judge sitting with two magistrates, with cases expected to attract sentences of around three years or less routed to that division, and judge‑only trials reserved for complex fraud.
Ministers are framing the proposals against record caseloads. Official statistics show 78,329 outstanding Crown Court cases at end‑June 2025, up from 76,957 in March, with some trials now listed into 2029. Commons material indicates the backlog could reach 99,000–114,000 by March 2029 without further action.
The Ministry of Justice argues changes would speed cases while preserving fair‑trial rights, noting in the leaked paper that there is no legal right to a jury trial. In law, judge‑only trials already occur in narrow circumstances-most notably where there is a proven danger of jury tampering under sections 44–46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Leveson’s Part 1 report modelled time savings from structural changes: keeping more either‑way offences out of the Crown Court and introducing a judge‑plus‑magistrates CCBD could save around 9,000 sitting days a year, alongside a temporary uplift in Crown Court sitting days to roughly 130,000.
Any reforms would apply only to England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland are not in scope of the MoJ‑commissioned review. The government has not yet published definitions for the proposed public‑interest test or the criteria for designating fraud cases as sufficiently technical and lengthy.
Process and timing remain fluid. Officials have begun a Whitehall ‘write‑round’ to secure cross‑government sign‑off, with an announcement pencilled in for December and legislation expected in early 2026, subject to Cabinet agreement. The MoJ maintains that decisions are pending.
Legal and professional reactions are polarised. The Criminal Bar Association’s chair, Riel Karmy‑Jones KC, has warned that curtailing juries will not fix delays and risks eroding confidence; the Bar Council has urged government to prioritise resourcing and court productivity before structural change. The Law Society has voiced similar concerns.
Parties outside government have also criticised the direction of travel. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has argued that limiting juries risks fairness and public trust, while the Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Jess Brown‑Fuller MP has called the reported plan “disgraceful” and urged ministers to withdraw it.
If implemented substantially as leaked, allocation for either‑way offences such as sexual assault, violent disorder and child abduction would change materially, requiring additional judicial and magistrate capacity. Evidence to Parliament suggests several thousand extra magistrates could be needed to operate a CCBD at scale alongside existing courts.
Next steps to watch include the government’s formal response and the publication of Leveson’s Part 2 report on court efficiency, due later in 2025. Any Bill would need to set out the public‑interest gateway for jury trials, appeal routes from judge‑only convictions and transitional arrangements for cases already listed.