Burnham moves an inch on Lammy's reforms, but ministers still plan to slash our right to a jury trial

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

25 September 2026

The right to a jury trial is an ancient and precious one that was codified in Magna Carta 1215. For centuries, jury trials have played a fundamental role at the heart of our criminal justice system and have acted as a bulwark against a repressive state and the emboldened cancel-culture mob.

When David Lammy was Justice Secretary, he introduced proposals in the Courts and Tribunals Bill which would see our right to a jury trial significantly curbed. The one-time Celebrity Mastermind contestant, who believed Henry VII followed Henry VIII, claimed that the only way to bring the backlog of 80,000 cases down was to slash our right to a jury trial. He did so without any credible evidence, a failing scathingly highlighted in a report from the influential House of Commons Justice Select Committee, which also blasted the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny before the Bill was introduced to Parliament.

The Institute for Government published a report in January which found that these reforms would save less than 2 per cent of Crown Court time, not the 20 per cent promised by ministers. This finding was recently endorsed by the new Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, who, in an interview with The Times, also said that curbing jury trials was more about cost-cutting for the Government than about solving the delays to justice for victims.

When Andy Burnham became Prime Minister in July, it was widely expected that he would axe David Lammy's unpopular and undemocratic plans, not least because Lammy was sacked as Justice Secretary, ejected from the Cabinet, and sent packing to the backbenches.

During the Makerfield by-election, our now Prime Minister urged Sir Keir Starmer to "pause" Lammy's jury trial reforms and called jury trials a "lynchpin of a fair society". After he became Prime Minister, a Downing Street spokesperson also said that Andy Burnham had no plans to continue with Lammy's reforms.

But actions speak louder than words, and this Prime Minister appears willing to say whatever will please the audience in front of him at any given moment. Andy Burnham kept Sarah Sackman — a chief cheerleader of the reforms — in post as Courts Minister. Then, for weeks, the new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Alex Norris, refused to take the opportunities he was given to announce that he was ditching Lammy's reforms, most notably when pressed in the House of Commons by the Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy.

Last weekend it was reported that Andy Burnham is set to ditch Lammy's plan for judge-only trials in cases where defendants face a prison sentence of less than three years. This is, of course, welcome news, but we must keep the champagne on ice for now. Ministers are still planning to press ahead with abolishing the historic right to elect for a jury trial, claiming it is the most effective way of bringing down the backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court.

Despite opposition and warnings from judges, lawyers, MPs, and victims, Burnham's Government is doubling down on the same misguided claim that came from the Starmer Government.

Free Speech Union research has shown that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be found not guilty in a Crown Court with a jury than in a magistrates' court without one. Put simply, if these reforms get through, more people will be banged up merely for exercising their right to free speech.

We know just how important jury trials are. Royal Marine veteran Jamie Michael was arrested at work and accused of stirring up racial hatred after a Labour Party staffer in the Senedd reported him for a twelve-minute video he posted on Facebook in the wake of the Southport murders, in which he called on his fellow citizens to use their democratic right to protest peacefully against mass migration. A man who had fought for his country was forced to spend twenty days behind bars. In the end, a jury found him not guilty in just seventeen minutes.

There is no world in which the opinion of a single judge is as valuable as the collective wisdom of twelve randomly selected members of the public, called upon to decide whether an individual is guilty or not guilty.

The battle is not yet over, and we must win it. We are calling on Andy Burnham and his Government to guarantee our right to a trial by jury.

Sign the Free Speech Union's petition and read more in The Telegraph.