Proposed changes to jury trials: What do they mean?

Among the central reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill (“the Bill”) are changes which directly affect the role of juries in criminal trials, particularly through restrictions on access to jury trial and the introduction of judge‑only proceedings in the Crown Court. 

The Bill is intended to put into place the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of Criminal Courts. In fact, the Bill goes further, in some areas, than Sir Brian’s recommendations. 

The Justice Committee released a report on 10 June 2026 which set out its concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Criminal Justic System which the Bill is intended to address.

We take a look at the key proposals of the Bill, together with the Justice Committee’s published concerns.

Key Proposals Affecting Jury Trials

• Removal of the Right to Elect Jury Trial

The Bill proposes removing a defendant’s long-standing right to elect trial by jury in “either-way” offences (these are offences which can be heard in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court), so that decisions about venue would instead be made by the Magistrates’ Court. In practical terms, that would mean defendants would no longer have a right to choose a Crown Court trial, marking a significant departure from the existing approach.

• Expansion of Magistrates’ Court Powers

That proposal sits alongside a further change to Magistrates’ Court powers. The Bill would increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to 24 months’ custody, with the effect that more serious cases could remain in the Magistrates’ Court rather than being sent to the Crown Court for jury trial. Taken together, these reforms would materially reduce the number of cases reaching the Crown Court .

• Introduction of Judge‑Only Trials in the Crown Court

The Bill also proposes the creation of a new Crown Court Bench Division, in which certain cases, primarily those likely to result in a sentence of less than three years, would be heard by a judge sitting alone rather than by a judge and jury. The scope of judge-only proceedings could extend further still, with some complex or lengthy cases, including fraud, also potentially being tried without a jury.

The Committee’s Key Concerns

While recognising the need to address the Crown Court backlog, the Justice Committee raises a number of significant concerns about the proposed reforms. 

• Concerns About the Shift Away from Jury Trial

The Committee highlights that removing the right to elect jury trial represents a fundamental change to a longstanding safeguard in the criminal justice system. 

In its report, the Committee emphasises that jury trial has long been regarded as an important safeguard for defendants and a central feature of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Against that background, it questions whether the Government has produced sufficient evidence to justify what is, in constitutional terms, a very substantial change. The Committee also cautions against treating likely sentence as the defining consideration, noting that this may fail to capture other important features of a case, including its complexity, the wider public interest and the reputational consequences for those involved.

• Concerns About Judge‑Only Trials

The Committee’s concerns also extend to the proposed use of judge-only trials in the Crown Court. In its view, the allocation process is likely to be more complex and time-consuming than the Bill suggests, which may in turn undermine some of the claimed efficiency gains. It also points to possible unintended consequences arising from the use of likely sentence as the sole test, including the possibility that defendants with previous convictions could, paradoxically, be more likely to receive jury trials than those without. More broadly, the Committee highlights the potential effect on public confidence if a greater number of criminal cases are determined without a jury. The Committee also notes that allowing cases to be tried without a jury may have implications for public confidence in the justice system.

• Lack of Evidence for Efficiency Gains

A central justification for reducing the number of jury trials is that doing so would improve efficiency. However, the Committee is sceptical about whether that case has yet been made out. It notes that the Government’s estimate of time savings of around 20% does not appear to rest on a particularly strong evidential foundation. In any event, any savings may prove less significant in practice if they are offset by disputes over allocation, the need for detailed reasoned judgments in judge-only trials, and a greater scope for appeals based on those judgments.

• Wider System Capacity Concerns

The Committee also questions whether the wider system is in a position to absorb the consequences of these changes. Magistrates’ Courts are already under pressure, and there is concern that they may struggle to deal with a greater volume of more serious and complex cases. If that proves right, reforms intended to ease pressure on the Crown Court may simply displace it elsewhere within the criminal justice system rather than resolve it.

• Equality and Fairness Concerns

The report also raises important equality concerns, particularly in relation to race. It notes that earlier reviews, including the Lammy Review, identified jury decision-making as one of the comparatively limited areas in which minority defendants did not experience disproportionate outcomes. Against that backdrop, the Committee warns that reducing the role of juries, while relying more heavily on a judiciary that does not yet reflect the same level of diversity, may risk entrenching or worsening existing disparities.

Conclusion

The Bill marks a major shift in how criminal cases are tried in England and Wales, with a clear move towards reducing reliance on jury trial in favour of judicial and summary decision‑making.

While the Justice Committee accepts the urgency of addressing the Crown Court backlog, it expresses serious concerns about the evidential basis, fairness, and potential unintended consequences of the reforms, particularly those affecting the right to jury trial.

As the Bill progresses, these issues are likely to remain central to debate, especially given their constitutional significance and long‑term impact on the criminal justice system.