A senior barrister representing lawyers across south-east England has warned that government plans to reduce jury trials could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Claire Davies KC, leader of the south-eastern circuit, said removing the right to trial by jury in thousands of cases risks weakening the legitimacy of court decisions and could make victims, witnesses and defendants feel less represented.
Her comments come as MPs prepare to vote on the government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill on Tuesday. The legislation would remove jury trials in certain cases as part of wider reforms aimed at tackling the growing backlog in crown courts.
Davies argued that juries play a crucial role in ensuring the justice system reflects the diversity of the communities it serves.
She said many people entering a courtroom feel reassured when they see members of the public sitting on a jury who may share similar backgrounds or experiences.
“A person walking into a courtroom wants to know the people listening to you are like you,” Davies said. “That means members of the public and that means juries.”
She added that the presence of a jury can be particularly important for victims who want to feel understood by those hearing their case.
“As a woman, I would want to look across the courtroom and see another woman among those 12 people,” she said. “Someone who may have been in my position or understood matters that have happened to me.”
“With a judge alone, your chances of that happening are far, far slimmer.” Davies also highlighted structural challenges within the judicial system, noting that judges are not always representative of the broader population.
She warned that relying more heavily on judges alone could reinforce perceptions that the system is distant from ordinary citizens.
At the same time, she pointed to the ongoing shortage of full-time judges across the country, suggesting that the move away from juries may not significantly improve efficiency.
According to Davies, there is an “endless supply” of members of the public willing to serve as jurors, while recruiting and appointing new judges remains a lengthy process. She also argued that removing juries might not necessarily free up courtrooms as intended.
Under the proposed model, judges would need to deliberate and record verdicts themselves, potentially occupying courtrooms that could otherwise be used to hear additional cases.
The debate over jury trials comes amid mounting pressure on the criminal justice system caused by a sharp rise in crown court backlogs. Across England and Wales, the number of pending crown court cases has surged by 137% since March 2019, reaching more than 78,000.
In the South East, the increase has been even more pronounced. By September 2025, the backlog had risen by 188%, with more than 16,400 cases waiting to be heard. Efforts to reduce the pressure have included transferring trials from regional courts to London.
Since the summer of 2024, some cases scheduled to be heard in Maidstone and Guildford have been moved to courts in the capital in an attempt to speed up proceedings.
However, this approach has created additional challenges. Between September 2024 and September 2025, London courts experienced a 24% rise in their own backlog of cases, compared with a 9% increase nationally.
Davies also criticised the condition of many court buildings across the region, describing them as poorly maintained and unfit for modern legal proceedings.
She said dilapidated facilities send the wrong message to victims, defendants and legal professionals alike. “It is an insult to everyone involved in the justice process,” she said.
Despite her concerns about jury reforms, Davies welcomed several other measures announced by the government.
These include plans for increased investment in courts, the introduction of unlimited sitting days for judges, and the reopening of so-called Nightingale courts established during the pandemic.
She pointed to the reopening of temporary courts in locations such as Chichester as a practical way to accelerate hearings without removing jury trials.
The reforms currently being debated are partly based on recommendations by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson.
The Lord Chancellor asked Leveson in December 2024 to develop proposals to address the mounting court backlog and prevent the system from becoming overwhelmed.
Among his recommendations were the expansion of out-of-court resolutions, such as cautions, and the introduction of jury-free trials for certain offences.
Speaking in July, Leveson warned that “fundamental” changes were necessary to avoid what he described as the risk of “total system collapse”.
The government has defended its approach, arguing that reforms are essential to deliver faster justice for victims.
Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy previously described the proposals as “bold” but necessary.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said that more than 90% of cases are already heard without a jury.
“With victims facing unacceptably long waits for justice after years of delays in our courts, we make no apologies for pressing ahead with our plans to reform the system,” the spokesperson said.
They added that the reforms would be accompanied by record investment aimed at modernising the courts and strengthening magistrates’ courts across the country.
This article was created using automation technology and was thoroughly edited and fact-checked by one of our editorial staff members
