Why Scrapping Jury Trials Is a Dangerous Path for British Justice

By Michael Thompson, Founder of the Falsely Accused Network

Sir Brian Leveson's latest proposals to tackle the criminal court backlog may be well-intentioned, but they represent a profound and dangerous shift away from the foundational principles of British justice. His suggestion to expand judge-only trials and curtail the right to jury trial in a wide range of offences is, frankly, alarming. While nobody denies that the current delays are unacceptable, dismantling long-standing safeguards is not the answer.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just "judicial efficiency." It's the slow erosion of public accountability in criminal trials.

A Backlog Caused by Mismanagement, Not Juries

The backlog of nearly 77,000 cases in the Crown Court didn’t appear overnight. It’s the result of over a decade of cuts, court closures, judicial under-resourcing, and chronic political neglect. COVID made things worse, yes — but the system was already limping. Leveson’s review fails to hold the Ministry of Justice accountable for the mess it created. Instead, it shifts the burden onto the rights of defendants — especially those who are vulnerable, marginalised, or falsely accused.

Who Loses When Jury Trials Are Removed?

It won’t be the wealthy or well-connected. It will be the working-class man falsely accused of coercive control. The father who is targeted during a bitter separation. The young Black man who already doesn’t trust the justice system. The mentally ill, the autistic, the poor — people who may not present well in front of a judge, but who might get a fairer hearing from twelve ordinary citizens.

Diversity matters. And as Solicitor Advocate Manisha Knights rightly said, juries bring diversity. The judiciary does not. Judges, however skilled, are drawn from a narrow demographic. Replacing juries with magistrates or judges alone, especially in borderline or "either-way" offences, concentrates decision-making in the hands of a small and socially unrepresentative elite.

Dangerous Precedent for the Falsely Accused

From our work at the Falsely Accused Network, we know how important juries can be in recognising when something doesn’t add up. A single judge — however well-meaning — may bring unconscious bias or professional cynicism after years in the system. A jury of twelve can spot holes in the narrative. They can feel when a case lacks credibility. Strip that away, and you hand life-altering decisions to a single authority figure.

Worse still, Leveson recommends removing the right to a jury trial for offences carrying a sentence of up to two years — including stalking, voyeurism, and possession of indecent images. These are not minor matters. They often involve complex, emotive allegations that can destroy lives. The idea that such cases can be safely disposed of in the magistrates' court, without even the option of a jury, is deeply naive — or dangerously strategic.

A System That’s Already Hostile to the Accused

Let’s not pretend the current system is working well for defendants. Delays aren’t just inconvenient — they are traumatising. People lose jobs, housing, mental health, and access to their children while waiting years to clear their name. Many plead guilty just to end the nightmare. And now we’re told the solution is to weaken what little protection they have left?

It feels like the solution being offered here is: “Let’s make it easier to convict more people, more quickly.” Not, “Let’s fix the broken infrastructure and invest in justice.”

What Should Be Done Instead?

There are better solutions — but they require political will and investment, not shortcuts. Here's what should be on the table:

1. Fully reopen and fund the courts

Restore the 300+ courtrooms that were shut in recent years. Hire more judges, magistrates, and court staff. Fund legal aid properly so cases aren’t delayed by unrepresented defendants struggling through the process.

2. Expand jury capacity, not reduce it

Allow split juries to run in parallel. Use evening or weekend juries where needed. Offer compensation or tax incentives for jury duty. Make juries more accessible — not less.

3. Improve early case review and disclosure

Many cases clogging the system are weak or procedurally flawed. Prosecutors need to screen them properly. Defendants need access to disclosure promptly. This will stop flimsy cases from dragging on.

4. Divert truly minor offences responsibly

Cautions and conditional cautions can work — but only for genuinely low-level, first-time offences, not anything involving harm, abuse, or reputational destruction.

5. Technology, not tyranny

Use digital tools to manage listing, disclosure, and evidence more efficiently — but keep the core principle of public, fair trials.

Conclusion: Do Not Trade Rights for Efficiency

The right to a jury trial isn’t an inconvenience — it’s a constitutional protection. It has saved countless innocent people from wrongful convictions, especially in emotionally charged or subjective cases. If we care about justice — not just speed — then we must fix the system, not gut it.

Sir Brian’s warnings about system collapse should be a call for funding, fairness, and proper reform — not for dismantling the jury trial, one offence at a time.

If the government is serious about justice, it must defend the principles that underpin it — not sacrifice them on the altar of convenience.

---

Michael Thompson is the Founder of the Falsely Accused Network, supporting individuals across England and Wales who have been falsely accused of domestic abuse or related criminal offences. Learn more at www.falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk