Table of contents

Approximate read time: 4 minutes

1. The jury system

The jury has been described as the “jewel in the crown” and the “corner-stone” of the British criminal justice system.[1] The origins of the modern justice system can be traced back to Henry II’s reign (1154–89).[2] Henry II is said to have established a jury of 12 lawful knights to settle land ownership disputes. Today the current system sees a jury of 12 lay people selected at random to determine the outcome of criminal trials in the crown court.[3] Whilst juries are used in some civil cases such as libel and slander trials, most tried in court do not have a jury.[4]

2. International comparisons

Whilst most countries use some form of lay participation in legal decision making, some do not use layperson juries.[5] For example, Germany abolished jury trials in 1924 through an emergency decree.[6] This abolition was primarily on the grounds of cost. Today, most criminal cases in Germany are tried by a mixed panel of professional and lay judges.[7] Lay judges in Germany are elected by local councils through a variety of selection procedures.[8]

Norway moved away from the use of layperson juries more recently.[9] In 2017, Norway abolished layperson juries previously responsible for adjudicating criminal appeals. These were replaced with mixed tribunals consisting of two professional and five lay judges who deliberate collectively, an arrangement already used in Norway’s trial courts. These reforms followed more than a century of debate in the country about how laypersons should participate in the legal system.

Some countries use a combination of layperson juries and mixed panels in their court system, including Japan. Since 1948, Japan has operated grand juries—known as the Prosecution Review Commission—comprising 11 citizens tasked with reviewing prosecutorial decisions.[10] Additionally, and in a bid to raise public confidence in the judicial system, Japan introduced ‘saiban-in’ tribunals in 2009 for serious criminal cases. Saiban-in tribunals involve a mixed panel of both citizens (lay judges) and professional judges who deliver joint decisions on both conviction and sentencing. This is the country’s first use of mixed tribunals. Citizens are selected for saiban-in service through a voter registration roll lottery to ensure broad civic participation in the administration of justice.[11]

3. England and Wales court reform

The government has proposed reforms that would reduce the availability of jury trials, largely to support court efficiency and create greater capacity. The Courts and Tribunals Bill therefore includes measures to introduce a crown court bench division. This division would consist of judge-only trials without juries that would hear either-way offence cases likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less.[12] An ‘either-way’ offence can be heard in either the magistrates’ or crown court. The government said this provision would help to reduce the crown court backlog by enabling eligible cases to be heard more efficiently and freeing up capacity for more serious cases to be tried by jury. Other measures in the bill include introducing judge-only trials for technical and lengthy fraud and financial offence cases. These proposals are similar but not identical to recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, a former High Court judge and previous president of the Queen’s Bench Division, following the independent review of criminal courts.[13]

The proposals have divided opinion on how best to address court backlogs while preserving the principle of jury participation. Reaction to the bill has largely centred on its proposed removal of jury trials for some cases, with extensive criticism from some parliamentarians and legal sector stakeholders. For example, in December 2025, around 40 Labour MPs co-signed a letter to the prime minister declaring they were not prepared to support the proposal.[14] Karl Turner—the MP who organised the letter and who had previously served as shadow attorney general and shadow solicitor general while Labour was in opposition—described the government’s plans as “simply unworkable”. Signatories were reported to have proposed alternative ways to reduce the court backlog, including increasing sitting days and hiring more barristers as part-time judges known as ‘recorders’. Additionally, over 3,200 legal professionals including barristers, solicitors and retired judges signed an open letter from the Bar Council to the government in March 2026 calling on it to rethink the proposal.[15] Arguing there was limited evidence that removing juries would save court time, signatories said they would “not support the erosion of a deeply entrenched constitutional principle for negligible gain and with substantial risks”.

Despite this opposition, the government confirmed its commitment to jury trial reform by including the measures in the King’s Speech 2026.[16] Following Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation announcement on 22 June 2026, Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy asked the government whether its jury trial reforms would proceed under a new prime minister, citing Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham’s reported reservations about the policy.[17] In response, Minister for Courts and Legal Services Sarah Sackman said structural reform was needed to bring down the courts backlog and argued that Andy Burnham had only called for time to “pause and reflect” on the proposals.[18]

The bill has completed its House of Commons committee stage and has been carried over to the current parliamentary session, with report stage yet to be announced.[19]

4. Read more

Image by Michael D Beckwith on Wikimedia Commons.

References

  1. Criminal Courts Review, ‘Chapter 5: Juries’, September 2001, p 135. Return to text
  2. JER Stephens, ‘The growth of trial by jury in England’, Harvard Law Review, 1896, vol 10, issue 3, pp 150–60. Return to text
  3. UK Government, ‘Jury service’, accessed 2 July 2026. Return to text
  4. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, ‘Civil: Civil justice in England and Wales’, accessed 2 July 2026. Return to text
  5. Marijke Malsch, ‘Lay adjudication around the world’, Oxford Handbook Topics in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4 August 2014. Return to text
  6. Sanja Kutnjak Ivković et al, ‘Juries, Lay Judges and Mixed Courts: A Global Perspective’, 2021, p 154. Return to text
  7. Judiciaries Worldwide, ‘Germany’, accessed 1 July 2026. Return to text
  8. Marijke Malsch, ‘Democracy in the Courts: Lay Participation in European Criminal Justice Systems’, 2009, p 39. Return to text
  9. Sanja Kutnjak Ivković et al, ‘Juries, Lay Judges and Mixed Courts: A Global Perspective’, 2021, pp 200–1. Return to text
  10. As above, pp 69–70. Return to text
  11. Judiciaries Worldwide, ‘Japan’, accessed 1 July 2026. Return to text
  12. Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘Courts and Tribunals Bill: Factsheet’, updated 9 March 2026. Return to text
  13. Ministry of Justice, ‘Independent review of the criminal courts: Part 1’, updated 10 July 2025, pp 239–72. Return to text
  14. Harry Farley and Sam Francis, ‘Starmer faces rebellion over plan to cut jury trials’, BBC News, 18 December 2025. Return to text
  15. Bar Council, ‘Open letter to the prime minister’, March 2026. Return to text
  16. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘The King’s Speech 2026: Background briefing notes’, 13 May 2026, pp 86–9. Return to text
  17. HC Hansard, 30 June 2026, col 742. Return to text
  18. HC Hansard, 30 June 2026, col 742. Return to text
  19. UK Parliament, ‘Courts and Tribunals Bill: Stages’, accessed 2 July 2026. Return to text