🔴 LAMMY’S STEALTH ATTACK ON JURY RIGHTS EXPOSED

The change, announced in the House of Commons, marks one of the most significant shifts in criminal procedure for decades and goes far beyond the headline focus on scrapping juries.

Buried within the package lies a quiet but profound empowerment of the magistrates’ courts that could keep thousands of either-way offences away from the Crown Court altogether.

Magistrates will see their maximum sentencing power rise from the current 12 months to 18 months immediately, with the Government explicitly reserving the option to extend this to 24 months if required.

At the same time, defendants will lose the existing right to decline to enter a plea when an offence is first allocated in the magistrates’ court.

Taken together, these measures create powerful new incentives for guilty pleas at the lowest tier and dramatically reduce the number of cases that ever reach the stage where jury trial can be elected.

Most either-way offences – theft, fraud, assault, drugs supply, dangerous driving – currently carry guideline sentences well inside the new three-year ceiling.

Defendants facing up to two years, under the planned extension, will therefore find that even if they fight the case, the penalty can now be imposed entirely by magistrates or a district judge sitting alone.

The practical consequence is stark: the right to jury trial is not being abolished outright for these offences; it is being rendered largely academic by making the magistrates’ court the default destination for determination and sentence.

For cases that do still cross the two-year threshold, but are potentially below a three year sentence the Government will establish a new “bench division” of the Crown Court – branded “swift courts” – where a single judge will hear the trial without a jury.

The Ministry of Justice estimates these judge-only hearings will allegedly take 20 per cent less time than conventional jury trials.

Complex fraud and other lengthy financial cases will also transfer automatically to judge-only procedure.

Appeals from both the enhanced magistrates’ courts and the new bench division will no longer be automatic; defendants must first pass a permission filter based solely on points of law.

The reforms track closely the recommendations of the 2023 review by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson, commissioned to tackle a Crown Court backlog currently standing at 67,000 cases and projected to hit 100,000 by 2028 without intervention.

Mr Lammy described the Leveson report as a “bold blueprint for change” and insisted that jury trial would remain the “cornerstone” for the most serious offences including murder, manslaughter and rape.

The Justice Secretary also announced £550 million of additional investment in victim and witness support services.

An earlier leaked memorandum suggesting the jury-trial threshold might be set as high as five years was swiftly disowned; officials stressed that the final three-year limit was Mr Lammy’s sole decision.

Legal bodies reacted with immediate alarm.

The Law Society warned that the measures “erode the right to be judged by our own peers” and noted that Sir Brian Leveson had actually recommended a panel of one judge and two magistrates for intermediate cases – a compromise that retained lay involvement which the Government has now rejected.

Criminal practitioners have questioned whether the projected reduction in Crown Court listings will materialise, pointing out that contested trials in the magistrates’ court often take longer than summary hearings and that guilty-plea discounts may already be close to maximum under existing guidelines.

Implementation will require primary legislation and, despite Government hopes for swift passage, the bill is certain to face intense parliamentary scrutiny when it is laid before the House in the coming months.

For now, the quiet expansion of magistrates’ jurisdiction may actually now prove to be the reform’s most enduring legacy.