Labour MPs rebel over plan to cut jury trials as backlog deepens

Labour MPs are openly challenging Keir Starmer’s plan to curtail jury trials in England and Wales, arguing the move would undermine defendants’ rights and fail to tackle the court backlog.

In a letter to Starmer, 39 MPs—mostly from the left of the party—warned that restricting juries to offences carrying three-year terms would be “madness and will cause more problems than it solves.” Former shadow attorney general Karl Turner, who organised the letter, said he will vote against Labour for the first time since Starmer took charge, branding the plans “simply unworkable.”

The government says the measure is necessary to stop victims “waiting years for justice” amid unprecedented delays. Justice Secretary David Lammy announced the plan on 3 December, saying it would divert cases from jury trials and rely more on volunteer community magistrates while creating new “swift courts” to handle quicker dispositions.

Latest official figures published on Friday showed a record backlog of 79,619 Crown Court cases, underscoring the scale of the pressure on the system. Turner told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the changes are “unjust” and that the “right to be heard before a tribunal of their own people” has “existed for something like 800 years.” He added, “Speak to the men and women at the criminal bar ... they will identify the problem is not juries.”

The letter suggests alternatives to shrink the backlog, including increasing sitting days, recruiting more barristers as part-time judges known as Recorders, and asking the Crown Prosecution Service to bring some backlog cases on a lower charge. While not enough to overturn Labour’s 148-seat majority, the letter signals a step up in opposition within the party.

The reforms stem from a Leveson review. Former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson proposed ending jury trials for most crimes attracting sentences up to five years and diverting offences to a Crown Court bench division, with more out-of-court settlements such as cautions. He warned in July that “fundamental” reforms were needed to reduce the risk of total system collapse. The plan also contemplates more use of a new intermediate court and tighter pathways to resolve cases outside traditional juries.

Several structural details accompany the plan: volunteer community magistrates would handle a larger share of cases, while a new form of judge-only Crown Court would hear many matters previously decided by juries. Lammy argued the changes would shorten case-processing times by about a fifth compared with traditional jury trials, though officials acknowledged that the system is already strained and that some cases could still face substantial delays.

The policy also reflects concerns about the pace of prosecutions. There are about 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales each year, of which roughly 10% advance to Crown Court. Of those Crown Court cases, about three in 10 end up in a jury trial. Critics warn that any shift away from juries must safeguard fair trial guarantees and avoid creating new bottlenecks elsewhere in the system.

The debate has drawn reactions from across the political spectrum. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told broadcasters on Friday that Labour ministers were “not being imaginative enough” and suggested courts should sit longer hours to clear the backlog. She argued that scrapping jury trials would remove freedoms and liberties and noted that judges don’t always get it right.

The clash inside Labour comes as the party weighs how to balance rights and timely justice ahead of future parliamentary battles over criminal-justice reform. The government maintains that its plan is essential to prevent a total collapse of the Crown Court system by 2028, with consequences that could ripple through victims’ access to timely prosecutions and defendants’ rights alike.