Former Justice Secretary Warns That Scrapping Jury Trials Risks the Safety of Judges and Judicial Independence

Max Thompson

23 April 2026

In yet another blistering attack on the Government’s plan to slash the right to jury trials, a former Justice Secretary has added his voice to a growing chorus of senior legal figures warning of the dangers of David Lammy’s reforms.

Sir Robert Buckland, who served as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice under Boris Johnson, has warned that limiting the right to jury trials will leave judges increasingly — and unnecessarily — exposed to physical attacks from defendants, criminals and their families. The former Cabinet Minister argues that the risk will be significantly heightened under reforms spearheaded by the current Justice Secretary, which would place judges solely responsible for deciding whether to convict defendants of offences, including those involving violence.

Setting out his reservations, Sir Robert said: “My concern is that without properly addressing the question of security for judges who are going to be determining these cases both in the court and outside, there will be potential threats that they may receive or pressure that they may come under.” He added: “If they’re being drawn into the arena to make these decisions, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate the potential for attacks. Without addressing that risk of threat, I’m worried that this will be an unforeseen consequence of this change.”

Under David Lammy’s reforms, defendants facing a prison sentence of less than three years will no longer have the right to choose a jury trial. Instead, their cases will be heard in a judge-only court or by magistrates.

Sir Robert’s intervention is the latest in a long line of warnings from senior lawyers and politicians, including the Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Kirsty Brimelow KC, and two of the Prime Minister’s own legal mentors from his days as a human rights lawyer at Doughty Street Chambers — Geoffrey Robertson KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC. His concerns also echo those of the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, who has warned that judges face an increased risk of physical violence from criminals and their families as a direct consequence of the reforms.

Speaking on the charity Justice’s podcast, Sir Robert raised a further and equally serious concern: that the reforms risk undermining judicial independence itself. “I am profoundly concerned that leaving individual judges to determine serious trial verdicts will put them under greater political pressure and expose them to further security threats,” he said. “With four in ten judges already expressing fears for their safety, exposing them to further public backlash and politicisation could seriously threaten judicial independence — and with it, the integrity of our justice system.”

The danger is not hypothetical. Sir Robert cited cases in the family courts where judges have been attacked as a direct result of their judgments. In one case, a man was jailed for throwing a radiator at a judge and assaulting him. In another, the brother of a defendant sentenced to two and a half years for causing death by dangerous driving ran from the public gallery at Ipswich Crown Court and attacked the presiding judge.

Sir Robert also pointed to the experience of Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland, where the removal of jury trials made members of the judiciary targets during the Troubles. The parallel is pointed: a report co-authored by the current Prime Minister during his time as a human rights lawyer concluded that the removal of jury trials had contributed to wrongful convictions in Northern Ireland — a finding that sits uncomfortably alongside his Government’s current proposals.

Jury trials are a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and a bulwark against an increasingly authoritarian state. This is an act of constitutional vandalism for which this Government has no mandate. Research carried out by the Free Speech Union 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.

This week, the Courts and Tribunals Bill — which includes the deeply unpopular jury reforms — returns to the House of Commons.

Up to 90 Labour MPs are expected to vote against the Government, backing an amendment tabled by Labour MP Charlotte Nichols which proposes the introduction of specialist sexual and domestic abuse courts where cases would be heard by both a specialist judge and a jury. Crucially, the amendment would also remove the government clauses that restrict the right to jury trial — a position its supporters argue is consistent with Labour’s own 2024 manifesto commitment.

While David Lammy continues to argue that restricting the right to trial by jury is the only way to address the backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court, there is no credible evidence to support that claim. The Government must heed the warnings of those who know the justice system best and drop these plans before irreparable damage is done.