Former judge says "we must not be silenced over the vandalism of juries"

Max Thompson, Campaigns Officer

28 April 2026

Sir Stephen Mitchell, a former senior Treasury Counsel at the Old Bailey and High Court judge, has written a powerful article in The Times attacking the Government’s plan to curtail the right to trial by jury — a right that has stood for more than 800 years.

Under proposals contained within the Courts and Tribunals Bill, championed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, defendants facing a maximum sentence of less than three years would no longer be entitled to elect for a jury trial. Their case would instead be heard by a judge sitting alone or by magistrates.

The plans have attracted near-universal criticism, with the legal profession broadly unified in opposition to this authoritarian move by David Lammy. They have also prompted a cross-party effort in the House of Commons — including an energised rebellion on the Labour back benches — to defeat what is described as the most serious assault on English liberty in over 800 years.

Jury trial has been embedded in our unwritten constitution for centuries. Sir Stephen characterises the Government’s reforms as a “form of legislative vandalism” — a “damaging and unwarranted dismantling of a system that has withstood the test of time and undoubtedly retains full public confidence”. He also highlights the central irony: it is the public who serve as jurors, and who form the cornerstone of the very criminal justice system the Government is now taking a sledgehammer to.

David Lammy claims that the reforms are necessary to address the backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court, but there is no evidence to support that proposition. The Institute for Government has warned that the changes would save only 2 per cent of Crown Court time — not the 20 per cent the Justice Secretary has promised. Sir Stephen agrees — as does almost everyone — that the Crown Court backlog is “truly scandalous”, but he warns against abandoning jury trial, which he describes as “the only surviving jewel in what was once this country’s much prized system of criminal justice”. He further warns that if pre-litigation takes hold — as the Government’s plans would encourage — there will be “more paperwork, more pre-trial hearings and, when permitted, more appeals”, which would, if anything, consume more Crown Court time rather than less.

Sir Stephen also raises the burden that “novel and onerous” responsibilities would place on the judiciary as criminal cases are removed from jury trial. There is a particular risk to the personal safety of judges, who would become the sole arbiter of a defendant’s fate — including in some cases involving violence. That concern echoes recent interventions from the former Conservative Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland, and from the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, who has warned that judges could face an increased risk of physical attack from defendants and their families.

The right to be tried by one’s peers was codified in clause 39 of Magna Carta 1215 and has since been a fundamental liberty of every citizen. Sir Stephen writes that over 40 years in the criminal courts he grew ever more convinced that the jury was the one untouchable component of the system: “The presence, independence, functions and responsibilities of 12 jurors combine to provide a vital dimension to the overall fairness required of every trial. Over 40 years in the criminal courts I became ever more convinced that the one untouchable component was the jury.”

Sir Stephen went on to warn that judge-alone trials would move proceedings closer to the continental inquisitorial model — in which the person responsible for reaching a verdict also presides over the trial — rather than the adversarial system to which this country is accustomed.

One particularly anomalous consequence of the Government’s proposals concerns the relevance of a defendant’s criminal record. A defendant with prior convictions for similar offences, where custodial sentences were imposed, might receive a sentence exceeding three years and thereby retain the right to a jury trial; whereas a first-time defendant — an alleged burglar of good character who may be entirely innocent — would be tried by a judge alone. As Sir Stephen observes: “For the first time, if you are to be tried in the crown court your good character may well cost you the opportunity of trial by jury. This is bizarre.”

Sir Stephen has expressed disappointment at the reticence of serving judges, who have largely declined to speak out on the grounds that these are matters of “government policy”. He regards that silence as contrary to the public interest: the public, he argues, is entitled to hear the views of those judges who would be called upon to assume the historic role that jurors have always played.

Finally, Sir Stephen calls on the Government to be candid — to set out precisely why it wishes to curtail the right to jury trial, so that the full ramifications can be understood and debated. That demand is all the more pressing given that no manifesto commitment authorised such sweeping reform, and no public consultation has been held.

Read more from Sir Stephen Mitchell in The Times.