On 2 December 2025, Justice Secretary David Lammy announced that the UK government is intending to remove jury trials for criminal offences attracting likely sentences of less than three years.
The government is seeking to limit jury trials only for the most serious offences including murder, robbery, and rape. Most other cases will be heard by a single judge in newly proposed “swift courts” designed to tackle the criminal court backlog that currently stands at a record figure of nearly 80,000 cases.
At present, defendants have the right to opt for a Crown Court trial by jury if they are being charged with “either-way” offences (those that can be trialled in the Magistrates’ Court or Crown Court). In the event the proposal is enforced, defendants will no longer be able to exercise this right. Many “either-way” offences include road traffic offences where the consequences can be life-altering for road users, particularly for professional drivers.
Impact of the reform on road transport users
Limiting jury trials in criminal cases would represent a major shift in the justice system. The reform would mean that many road traffic allegations that rely on credibility assessments, memory, and behaviour under stress will be decided entirely by a judge.
At present, professional drivers are already subject to additional scrutiny. The sentencing guidelines, following an update in June 2025, make clear that driving for work is seen as an aggravating factor, and tougher penalties can be imposed in road traffic offences where commercial vehicles are involved.
Prosecution against commercial drivers does not only mean fines or points added to their licences; it can lead to detrimental consequences involving:
- revocation of professional licences,
- loss of income,
- smeared reputation,
- loss of trust, and
- mental health challenges.
Why does the reform matter?
One of the primary factors for the government’s proposal to reform the British jury system is to improve court efficiency. They argue that by limiting jury trials to serious offences only, and re-diverting the remainder to swift courts, could help in reducing the worsening backlog however they are yet to present any evidence to support this rationale.
Legal experts say that the real reasons for the backlog lie in underinvestment in the court system, reduced sitting days and court closures, and that the delays will not be improved by removing juries.
In cases involving road traffic allegations, clarity is awaited from the government as to how their proposal will retain elements of fairness and credibility, especially in complex cases such as those involving multi-party collisions. There are concerns that judge-only trials could risk compromising fairness and transparency and reduce public confidence in the UK’s legal system.
Looking ahead
The announcement from the Justice Secretary has sparked controversial debate. The proposals, if adopted into law, will result in a major shift in the UK’s justice system with the introduction of legislation needed to bring about the changes. Whilst restricting jury trials might appear to provide a faster route to clear the backlog, many argue that the delays stem from wider capacity constraints within the courts and not the workings of juries themselves.
The extent of the government’s intention remains to be seen and there are clear calls for them to give serious consideration to improving outcomes for both victims and defendants by investing in the capacity of the courts as opposed to the introduction of trial by judge alone.
