Jury trials scrapped for sex offenders to cut court backlogs

Telegraph

09-07-2025

Suspected sex offenders and drug dealers are among thousands of defendants who could be stripped of the right to a jury trial under 'radical' proposals to tackle chronic court backlogs.
Under plans for a 'once in a generation' reform of the courts, a review led by Sir Brian Leveson, a former appeal court judge, has recommended that defendants accused of 220 offences will no longer have an automatic right to be tried by a jury of their peers.
Sir Brian said restricting the historical right to a jury trial – which has its origins in the 1215 Magna Carta – was necessary because criminal justice was 'too broken' and a 'radical and essential package of measures to prevent total collapse of the system' was required.
He said ditching juries would mean simpler, speedier and cheaper justice, saving the equivalent of 9,000 court sitting days a year. His report comes as the backlog of crown court cases has risen to a record 77,000, with trials delayed as far ahead as 2029.
In his 378-page report published on Wednesday, Sir Brian proposes changes at every stage of the judicial process. His recommendations also include greater use of cautions and unpaid work to divert thousands of thieves, violent criminals and drug addicts away from courts.
He said defendants should receive a 40 per cent discount on their sentence if they pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, up from 33 per cent. It could mean a criminal facing a nominal 10 years in jail would serve just two years in prison.
However, his biggest and most controversial reform is to the jury system, where he proposes that anyone facing a charge carrying a maximum sentence of two years in jail would lose their right to opt for a jury trial.
Such offences include assault of a police officer or other emergency worker, stalking, possession of an indecent photograph of a child, and causing death by driving an uninsured vehicle.
He also proposes creating a new division of the crown court, where a judge and two magistrates would sit without a jury to rule on some 166 offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years.
These include sex assaults, dealing or importing drugs, child abduction, violent disorder, assault causing actual bodily harm, causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, sex with a child under 13, burglary, firearms and knife possession, and fraud.
A judge would decide whether a defendant's case would be sent to the new court, or to the crown court with a jury. Crown courts with juries would continue to deal with the most serious offences, such as murder, rape and terrorism.
However, any crown court defendant would have a right to ask for a judge-only trial, which Sir Brian suggested may be because they might have a technical defence better understood by a judge or because they had committed a high-profile offence which ' may not be particularly attractive to members of the public '.
Complex cases that may last a year or more such as fraud, insider trading, bribery and money laundering, would also be dealt with only by a judge.
Sir Brian said: 'The backlog has now become utterly unmanageable, and risks jeopardising the entirety of our criminal justice system.
'Because the further you push cases off into the future, the more disincentive there is for those who are guilty of crime to admit their crime, because they can put it off in the hope it will just go away, or that the witnesses will lose interest.
'So that is not only disastrous for victims and witnesses, but also for the administration of an effective criminal justice system…Doing nothing will lead, in my view, to the collapse of the system.'
He denied that sparing people guilty of thefts, drug use or minor assaults a criminal record by using out of court resolutions such as cautions was 'soft justice.' 'The challenge at the moment is that shop theft isn't being prosecuted at all,' he said.
'They could be offered some meaningful activity, or maybe a penalty, or maybe in appropriate cases, some unpaid work or some rehabilitation, which keeps them out of the criminal justice system.'
Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, said ministers will now consider the recommendations and will respond before legislating changes in the autumn. 'Swifter justice requires bold reform, and that is what I asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose,' she said.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'Taken together, the Leveson and David Gauke reviews will see criminals like burglars and even some killers serve just a fifth of their prison sentence. That makes a mockery of our justice system.
'Before tearing up our constitutional settlement by scrapping jury trials, Labour should maximise court sitting days and bear down on rampant inefficiency. But they refuse, and as a result the court backlog is rising fast on their watch.'
The Bar Council welcomed the focus on diverting offenders away from the courts but warned against proposals to remove jury trials.
'Changing the fundamental structure of delivering criminal justice is not a principled response to a crisis which was not caused by that structure in the first place,' said Barbara Mills, the council's chair.