Jury’s back
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit <a href="https://rozenberg.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7">rozenberg.substack.com</a><br/><br/><p>We still don’t know why <a target="_blank" href="https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/jury-trials-scrapped-court-backlog-5sh9b8psn">leaked government plans reported on Tuesday of last week</a> — “juries will decide only murder, rape or manslaughter cases” — were so different from what ministers announced this Tuesday.</p><p>It turns out that jury trial will be retained for cases where the likely sentence is over three years and for all indictable-only offences. Examples given by the government include murder, manslaughter, endangering life, rape and other penetrative sex offences, aggravated burglary, blackmail, kidnapping, people-trafficking, rioting, terrorism offences, grievous bodily harm with intent, the most serious drug offences and some weapons offences.</p><p>So there are two possibilities: either the leaked document seen by other reporters was not an accurate account of the government’s plans or it was correct at the time it was circulated and ministers then modified their ambitions. </p><p>When I interviewed the courts minister Sarah Sackman MP on Wednesday, I asked her which it was. On the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, you can hear how she answered. </p><p>I also took Sackman through detailed plans set out by the justice secretary in a <a target="_blank" href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-02/hcws1123">written ministerial statement</a> on Tuesday. During the interview, I began to understand why David Lammy had told MPs that we would have to wait until the next general election, due in 2029, before we could expect to see a fall in the crown court backlog.</p><p>I analyse Sackman’s account of the government’s wide-ranging plans in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/jury-reforms-not-just-crisis-management/5125355.article">my latest column for the Law Society Gazette</a>.</p><p>In <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/jury-reforms-not-just-crisis-management/5125355.article">my column</a>, I also argue that public involvement in the criminal justice system should not be regarded as an immutable absolute. Putting it another way, I am not convinced by those who claim that we can substantially reduce the current unacceptable crown court delays without making significant structural changes. If you disagree, listen to Sackman and then add a comment below.</p><p><a target="_blank" href="https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-02/hcws1123">Lammy’s statement</a> should be read in full. For convenience, I have extracted the half-dozen proposals that I asked Sackman to explain or justify:</p><p>* Magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers will increase to 18 months, with provision to extend to 24 months if necessary to relieve pressure in the crown court.</p><p>* The right of defendants to elect for a jury trial will be removed, meaning that it will be for the court to determine where a case will be heard based on the severity of offences.</p><p>* The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the crown court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.</p><p>* A new bench division will be established in the crown court for triable-either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less, heard by a judge alone.</p><p>* Jury trials will remain for indictable-only offences and cases with likely sentences over three years.</p><p>* A small number of serious, but particularly technical and lengthy, fraud and financial cases may be heard by judge alone in the crown court, subject to certain requirements and at the discretion of the court.</p><p>What emerges from the interview, it seems to me, is that there is still a lot left to play for.</p><p>My weekly podcast — occasionally, twice-weekly — is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.</p>
