Proposals to cut the use of jury trials for most offences would be one of the most significant legal reforms in UK history. The government’s plans have prompted much debate in legal circles and beyond – mainly around whether they go against the UK’s democratic principles.
The government’s hope is that reducing jury trials will address the growing backlog of cases in the Crown Court. But the proposals included in the courts and tribunals bill suggest that many more cases would be dealt with in magistrates courts instead of Crown Courts.
The bill proposes removing people’s ability to choose a jury trial in certain types of cases. It also introduces a new tier of Crown Court, in which cases will be tried by one judge alone.
To further restrict the number of cases reaching Crown Courts, the bill proposes significantly increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, and restricting the ability to appeal magistrates court decisions.
Why magistrates courts are under pressure
Magistrates courts are already the workhorses of the English and Welsh criminal justice system. Cases are presided over either by a legally qualified district judge, or by two or three lay magistrates. Magistrates are not necessarily legally qualified, but are assisted by a specialist court legal adviser.
All criminal cases in England and Wales begin in magistrates courts, and more than 95% of cases end there too. Official statistics show that, in 2025, English and Welsh magistrates courts received almost 1.5 million cases. This is compared to just over 120,000 cases received at Crown Courts over the same period.
These courts have already been affected by increased pressure on the legal system. In late 2025, it was reported that the magistrates court backlog had increased by 62% since 2019.
In order to generate funds that would contribute to a courts modernisation programme, around half of magistrates courts closed between 2010 and 2019.
The remaining courts have had to act more efficiently to cope with a substantial increase in workload, raising concerns about the quality of justice delivered. Now, if many more cases are redirected there as jury trials are cut, the situation could worsen.
sebra/Shutterstock
Magistrates have limited sentencing powers. In 2024, the justice secretary doubled the length of prison sentence that a magistrates court can hand down, from six months to 12 months, to help tackle the criminal courts backlog. The new bill proposes increasing their sentencing powers further, to at least 18 months.
As their sentencing powers increase, magistrates might be faced with more legal arguments in more complex cases. They will certainly need more training to be able to properly manage the new level of offences they would be dealing with, which will come with its own costs.
Lack of magistrates
In addition to court closures, the number of sitting magistrates almost halved between 2012 and 2023. Many resigned due to feeling disenfranchised and undervalued, with many being left out-of-pocket in connection with their duties.
Recruitment drives have so far failed to remedy that decrease. Problems with recruitment and retention of court legal advisers also restrict magistrates courts’ capacity and cause delay.
Unrepresented defendants increase the pressure further. Many of these defendants are, understandably, unable to present their cases to the court as efficiently as lawyers would, leading their cases to take longer.
The thinktank The Centre for Public Data found that, in the first half of 2023, nearly half (48%) of defendants appearing in magistrates courts on imprisonable summary offences – including assaults, theft and possession of drugs – lacked recorded legal representation. This was up from 35% in 2022.
The way legal aid funding works means people who go to magistrates courts have a higher income threshold to get representation provided for them than people whose cases are heard in the Crown Court. The rationale was that their cases are generally less complex and involve a single hearing.
However, given that the proposed changes to jury trials mean magistrates are likely to deal with more complex cases more frequently, it seems likely that more people will appear in magistrates courts without representation in future.
Legal aid cuts also mean there are far fewer lawyers conducting this type of work. For example, the number of duty solicitors under the age of 45 has shrunk by 55% in the five years to 2024. Duty solicitors provide advice and representation to people appearing while in custody or for potentially imprisonable offences.
This means there are unlikely to be sufficient duty lawyers in the medium-to-long term to represent all the people who might now be facing sentences at their first hearing in magistrates courts.
Remedying delays in the criminal justice system requires more than passing the political hot potato of court backlogs from Crown Courts to magistrates courts.
The current proposals risk causing more wrongful convictions. Meanwhile, their ability to improve the productivity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system remains contested.
