Conservatives force vote to protect jury trials

Tomorrow [Tuesday 10^th March 2026], the Conservative Party will force a vote in Parliament to protect the right to trial by jury.

Labour's Courts and Tribunals Bill removes defendants' right to choose trial by jury for all triable either-way offences. Under the proposals, magistrates alone will determine whether these cases stay in the magistrates' court or proceed to the Crown Court, removing a long-standing safeguard that allows defendants to elect trial before a jury of their peers. The Bill also introduces trial by judge alone in the Crown Court for triable either-way cases likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less, as well as trying serious and complex fraud cases by judge alone.

Further, the Bill repeals the presumption in the Children Act 1989, inserted by the Children and Families Act 2014, that the involvement of a parent in a child's life will promote their welfare. As the presumption is rebuttable it should not be used by the courts to facilitate contact where that would be inappropriate, and the principled starting point must be that parents should be involved in the life of their child.

Critically, the Bill does not simply remove the right to elect Crown Court trial, it goes further still. Even cases that do proceed to the Crown Court may be heard by a judge sitting alone in a new Crown Court Bench Division, with no jury present. The combined effect is stark: jury trial will effectively be reserved only for the most serious indictable-only offences, such as murder and rape. Other crimes, including those that could attract years long prison sentences, would be tried entirely without a jury at any stage”.

The Bill also restricts the right of defendants to appeal decisions made in the magistrates' courts. Rather than an automatic right to appeal convictions or sentences, defendants would first have to obtain permission to challenge the outcome. At the same time, cases could be transferred back from the Crown Court to magistrates' courts without the defendant's consent.

These changes represent a constitutional axe to our justice system and do little to address the underlying causes of the court backlog. For centuries juries have ensured that the power of the state is balanced by the judgment of ordinary citizens. The right to trial by jury is the cornerstone of the British legal system.

Legal experts, practitioners, and former judges have warned that dismantling this safeguard risks undermining confidence in the justice system. Polling has also shown that the public remains strongly supportive of jury trials, with nearly half of voters expressing discomfort with limiting access to them. Whilst this also represents a sharp reversal of Labour's previous position. David Lammy MP, Justice Secretary, and Sir Keir Starmer MP, Prime Minister previously defended jury trials as a cornerstone of impartial justice.

The Conservatives argue that Labour's proposals will not meaningfully reduce the Crown Court backlog and risk weakening fundamental safeguards within the justice system. The Government should focus on practical reforms to increase court capacity, including improving case management, encouraging earlier guilty pleas, increasing Crown Court sitting days, and extending daily court operating hours through better use of technology and more efficient prisoner transport. Without those changes, removing juries will simply shift cases around the system without addressing the underlying issues.

Labour's wider record on criminal justice is just as shameful, including the early release of nearly 50,000 prisoners under the SDS40 scheme and the accidental release of more than 260 prisoners in the past year. Calamity Lammy has lurched from crisis to crisis and now is taking the bluntest tool possible in attempt to cover for his failure.

The Conservative Party is giving Parliament the opportunity to block these proposals and protect the foundations of our justice system. There is clear unease among Labour backbenchers about these reforms, and MPs will have the chance on Tuesday to join Conservatives in voting to preserve the right to trial by jury.

Nick Timothy MP, Shadow Justice Secretary, said:

“The right to a jury trial is one of the foundations of our constitution, and this is an unacceptable attack on an ancient right.

“Juries provide a safeguard between the citizen and the state. But Labour want to weaken it because Keir Starmer and David Lammy are putting what is politically expedient ahead the hard yards of court reform.

“Parliament has a clear choice. It can stand up for one of the oldest rights in our justice system or let Labour take a sledgehammer to our constitution. Conservatives will vote to defend jury trials, and I urge Labour MPs to do the same.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The Conservative Party motion to decline Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill:

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the UK's constitution and democracy; therefore believes that it is wrong to remove defendants' right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; further believes that extending magistrates courts' sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; also believes that reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; believes that eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.

Labour's plan to weaken our justice system:

• This Bill will remove defendants' right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences.This means that a decision on jurisdiction will be made solely by the magistrates' courts, based on sentence length and whether the magistrates courts can sentence for that time.

• This Bill will remove the consent requirement so a case can be remitted to the magistrates' court without the defendant's consent.Crown Court judges are currently able to remit a case to the magistrates' court where they determine it to be within a magistrates' court's jurisdiction. However, this is currently subject to defendant consent.

• This Bill will replace the automatic right to appeal in the magistrates' court against conviction or sentence with a requirement for permission to appeal.This will also replace the requirement for a full re-hearing in the Crown Court with a hearing on the issues for which permission to appeal has been granted.

• This Bill will introduce a Crown Court Bench Division where cases are tried by a judge alone.To ensure that jury trials remain in place for the most serious crimes, only triable-either-way cases that are assessed as likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less will be allocated for trial in the Bench Division. Indictable-only offences cannot be tried either. To determine whether a triable-either-way case should be allocated for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the offence to be tried is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less.

• The Bench Division will operate as a lower tier in the existing Crown Court. The Bill will not create a separate jurisdiction or ‘Intermediate Court'. The usual Crown Court procedures will apply in the Bench division.

• No new appeal route is created for decisions to allocate a case to the Bench Division. When trying a case without a jury, the judge will give a reasoned judgment setting out the basis for conviction or acquittal, in contrast to jury verdicts.

• This Bill will allow certain technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences to be tried by a judge alone in the Crown Court. Cases will only be considered eligible for a specific preparatory hearing that has been ordered under s7 Criminal Justice Act 1987 or s29 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; the case involves at least one fraud or related financial offence listed in new Schedule 3ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (i.e. fraud by false representation, cheating the public revenue, money laundering, etc); and the case does not involve an indictable-only homicide offence or an indictable-only sexual offence, including attempts or conspiracies to commit such offences.

• However, the Secretary of State for Justice can modify the eligible offences listed in Schedule 3ZA via affirmative Statutory Instrument. This means that in future, they can odd offences which are not related to fraud or financial crime to the Schedule, or remove offences already listed.

The previous Conservative Government's record on strengthening the justice system:

• We allowed the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row whilst recruiting up to 1,000 judges, ensuring greater access to justice. In August 2023, we announced £220 million over the subsequent two years for essential modernisation and repair work, ensuring our courts can stay open. We extended the use of 24 Nightingale courtrooms in 2023 and opened two permanent ‘super courtrooms' to hear as many cases as possible (MoJ, Press Release, 11 August 2023, link).

• We toughened up sentences for the worst criminals, ensuring life really does mean life for the most depraved in society. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act introduced whole life orders for child killers involving abduction or sexual or sadistic motivation (MoJ, Press Release, 6 November 2023, link).

• We ended halfway releases for serious offenders, keeping the most dangerous offenders behind bars for longer. Our PCSC Act ended the automatic half way release of serious violent and sexual offenders introduced by Labour (MoJ, Press Release, 9 March 2021, link; Hansard, 5 July 2021, Division 44, link).

Labour's record undermining public safety and the justice system:

• David Lammy said juries deter and expose prejudice and unintended bias.  LAMMY: ‘For example, juries deliberate as a group through open discussion. This both deters and exposes prejudice or unintended bias: judgments must be justified to others. Successive studies have shown that juries deliver equitable results, regardless of the ethnic make-up of the jury, or of the defendant in question (Lammy Review,  Final Report, 8 September 2017, link).

• David Lammy said juries are the ‘guardians of this principle [impartiality].LAMMY: ‘Our justice system is built on the principle that the law will be applied impartially. In the cases that involve the greatest harm to victims and the longest sentences for offenders, juries are the guardians of this principle (Lammy Review,  Final Report, 8 September 2017, link).

• Keir Starmer said ‘the general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions'. STARMER: ‘I'm strongly in favour of jury trials … but I do recognise that in very exceptional cases trials will have to proceed without a jury. That has to be on the order of a court, so the general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions' (The Lawyer, Keir Starmer Lawyer2B Interview, 25 January 2010, link).

• Keir Starmer said the right to ‘trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual' and he urged ‘there be a right of trial in all criminal cases.' STARMER: ‘The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance. Despite the inevitable increase in costs, the Haldane Society urges that there be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases' (Socialist Lawyer Magazine, 1992, archived).

• Labour have released nearly 50,000 criminals from prison early in just 12 months, risking the safety of the British public. Since entering office, Labour have released 48,931 under their early release scheme between 10 September 2024 and 30 September 2025 (MoJ, Transparency Data, 29 January 2026, link). 

• 262 prisoners have been accidentally released on Labour's watch, an increase of 128 per cent from the previous year.In the 12 months to March 2025, 262 prisoners were accidentally released, the highest in the time series, largely because of the operational and legislative changes imposed on this Labour Government onto prison officers (MoJ, Official Statistics, 31 July 2025, link).

• Labour will release the most dangerous criminals, including killers and rapists, onto our streets after serving just half of their prison sentence.Labour's Sentencing Bill changes the law so that most criminals, including sex offenders and robbers, will be released after serving just a third of their sentence with the exception of killers and rapists who will have to serve at least half of their sentence (UK Parliament, Sentencing Bill, 2 September 2025, link).

• Labour will hand over 40,000 criminals a ‘get out of free' jail card by abolishing custodial sentences less than 12 months long. Because of Labour's Sentencing Bill, criminals, including burglars, shoplifters and knife offenders, will instead face community sentences under their plan to scrap most jail terms of under 12 months (The Telegraph, 24 May 2025, link).

• The Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials for most crimes, despite previously defending them as fundamental to democracy. In 2020, David Lammy said that ‘jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement' and warned that ‘criminal trials without juries are a bad idea', yet he is now removing juries from cases likely to receive three-year sentences or below (Hansard, Vol.776 Col.802, 2 December 2025, link; David Lammy, X, 20 June 2020, link).

• Karl Turner, a former Shadow Attorney General, said that Lammy and Starmer should be ‘ashamed' over their plan to scrap jury trials.TURNER: ‘I am determined to stop this ludicrous plan. They both know this isn't going to touch the backlog. They ought to be ashamed. The fact that they are pitching this as if it will be the answer to victims waiting years for justice is crude and untrue. It's over-promising to ultimately under-deliver. It will let those innocent people down' (Huffington Post, 1 January 2026, link).

Legal experts warn Labour's jury trial reforms go too far:

• Chair of the Commons Justice Committee welcomed the reforms overall, but the Government must explain what type and number of cases will lose the right to a jury trial and this evidence is what should decide how the right to jury trial is prescribed'. Andy Slaughter said the Bill ‘shows the government is serious about its intention to control the Crown court backlog by a combination of investment, greater efficiency and reform, including controversial proposals on how and where cases will be tried…This should allow the government to explain exactly what type and number of cases will lose the right to a jury trial and how much this will contribute to reducing the backlog…That evidence is what should decide how the right to jury trial is prescribed' (The Law Gazette, 25 February 2026, link). 

• The Immediate Past President of the Law Society, Richard Atkinson, said the Government's proposals ‘go too far in eroding the longstanding right to be judged by a jury of our own peers'. Atkinson said, ‘The backlogs in our courts need to be tackled urgently and additional investment and resources and a commitment to Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations are welcome. However, the government's proposals go too far in eroding the longstanding right to be judged by a jury of our own peers. They allow a single judge to determine guilt in serious, life-changing cases which could significantly affect people's liberty and reputations. Lasting reform requires sustained funding for court capacity and the legal profession, not rushed legislation that risks weakening confidence in the justice system (The Law Society, 24 February 2026, link).

• A YouGov poll found that almost half of the people surveyed were uncomfortable with limiting access to jury trials.Crest advisory found there was no appetite at all for limiting jury trial with one case study commenting, ‘A justice system is an equal right on both sides of that argument. There's fair representation that is required for the offender as much as there is for the victim. If someone is guilty, that justice should be evaluated effectively by an independent group of people'. They then referenced a YouGov poll which found that 46 per cent of those surveyed were uncomfortable with limiting access to jury trials, compared to just 28 per cent who were comfortable with the proposal (Crest Advisory, 26 January 2021, link).

• The President of the Law Society of England and Wales said the scrapping of jury trials was an ‘extreme measure' that goes ‘far beyond' the recommendations of the Leveson review and is not backed by ‘any real evidence' in reducing court backlogs. Evans said: ‘The proposals were an “extreme measure” that go “far beyond” Leveson's recommendations, adding ‘this is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far…We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs' (BBC News, 25 November 2025, link).

• Caroline Goodwin KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association 2019-20, said ‘there is no substitution for both open and efficient justice by having a live trial … with jurors'. During the pandemic, Goodwin said: ‘To be crystal clear, there is no substitution for both open and efficient justice by having a live trial in a physical space with jurors, barristers, a judge, witnesses and defendants all able to engage fully and solemnly with the full range of verbal, non-verbal and visual cues' (CBA, News, accessed 5 January 2026, link).

• The Bar Council said there is ‘no basis' for altering the structure of the court system and that juries ‘reduce the influence of conscious or unconscious bias'. The Bar Council's submission to the Leveson Review said: ‘we are strongly of the view that there is no basis for altering the structure of the court system, especially where it will limit the right of our citizens to be tried by a jury of their peers … Juries perform a similar function, in a different way, against a ‘rogue' decisionmaker in the Crown Court – the number of people in a jury, their random selection and their non-professional status all reduce the influence of conscious or unconscious bias in the crucial decision as to guilt or innocence' (The Bar Council, Response to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, 6 February 2025, link).

• Christopher Kinch KC, resident judge at Woolwich Crown Court 2013-24, said the government's plan ‘falls short both on evidence and analysis.' KINCH: ‘Reforms would not be confided to minor offending but would extend to burglary, most offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and even cases involving death or serious injury caused by careless driving.' Further, the suggested time saving is ‘inherently uncertain,' since the time needed for judges to ‘produce reasoned decisions' would mean that ‘courtrooms would lie empty rather than being used for other trials' (Huffington Post, 18 December 2025, link).