NEWS: RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY TO BE ABOLISHED FOR EITHER-WAY OFFENCES & COMPLEX FRAUD ALLEGATIONS
Updated: Oct 6
THE CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION: “IT WOULD BE A CAR CRASH IF THEY TRIED TO DO IT.”
0n 04/10/2026 His Majesty's Government (HMG) softened its controversial plans to abolish the fundamental right to trial by jury established by the Magna Carta 1215. The Courts & Tribunals Bill's (the Bill) original aim was to remove the right to trial by jury for all offences punishable with <3 years imprisonment. Pursuant to ‘the New Proposals’, the right to trial by jury will be reserved for indictable-only crown court cases which fall outside the meaning of ‘Complex Fraud.’
Nothing in this article should be misconstrued as legal advice and you are referred to our sites terms and conditions of use accordingly.
SUMMARY
04/10/26 - UK Labour Government softens its controversial plans to convict and/or imprison people without trial by jury. Under the New Proposals:
People accused of child abuse, sexual assaults and GBH offences will have their futures decided by unqualified magistrates. The right to elect a trial by jury for either-way offences (EWO) will be at the magistrate’s discretion.
People charged with ‘complex fraud’ offences will lose their right to trial by jury and instead, have their futures decided by crown court judges sitting alone.
The Criminal Bar Association & Bar Council warned that the New Proposals would be a “car crash if they tried to do it, especially now!"
Notwithstanding, The Victims Commissioner for England & Wales criticised the New Proposals stating that victims were being “asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves argued would not be [enough].”
The Bill had its 2nd reading in Parliament 10/03/2026. A summary of the Bill and its background can be found here.
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The New Proposals were announced by Alex Norris HM Lord High Chancellor via the BBC:
“I have heard the strength of feeling on the proposals for increasing the number of judge-alone trials in the Crown Court and have made the decision to change course … This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring that under this government we do not have victims waiting endlessly for justice … Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment. I remain committed to structural reform which is crucial if we are to bring down the backlog."
Pursuant to the New Proposals, those misfortunate enough to be charged by the state of 'Complex Fraud' will have their fates determined by a crown court judge sitting alone. In this context, the public's perception that the court transcripts are accurate and independently verified acts as the only safeguard which we could discern.
For all other indictable-only crown court offences, the accused should expect the right to a trial by an independently randomly selected jury of their peers.
Regrettably, those unlucky enough to be charged with an EWO will lose their right to elect trial by jury. Instead, their fates will be decided by magistrates whom despite a string of recent controversies, are to have their sentencing powers increased.
A magistrate is a lay volunteer without legal qualification or training. They are reserved for the most minor 'summary only' offences such as speeding. Under the current law, a magistrate may imprison someone for up to 12 months. Pursuant to the New Proposals, these powers will be increased for up to either 18 or 24 months. The final figure will be determined by Parliament at the Bill's 3rd reading listed for this October 2026.
Alex Norris is the UK's 7th Lord High Chancellor in the last 5 years and one of the few members of the UK Labour Government Cabinet whom has never been charged or convicted with a criminal offence.
Since coming to power, the criminal records of HMG's Labour Cabinet ministers have been sealed subsequent to a successful tribunal ruling. Consequently, the only people in the United Kingdom whom enjoy the privilege of having their unspent criminal convictions sealed for a plague of dishonesty offences; are the Labour politicians passing the laws they brake while debating whether people accused of the same crimes should enjoy the same rights and benefits they were afforded by the taxpayer. In that context the New Proposals may rightly be treated with the stink of hypocrisy.
Mr Norris omitted to state that the HMG's own research concluded that abolishing the fundamental right to trial by jury would have no positive effect on the court backlog. Notwithstanding that the country is in an unmanageable £3 Trillion debt spiral, Mr Norris (unconvincingly) maintained that the New Proposals were intended to speed-up access to justice.
REACTIONS
The loss of the automatic-right to elect trial by jury for either-way offences is not a "change of course."
The Criminal Bar Association (CBA):
Andrew Thomas KC - Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association warned:
“The proposal to strip defendants of their right to elect a crown court trial combined with doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to 2 years would shift 25’000 cases a year - including 5’500 jury trials - out of the crown court … these are not minor offences. It includes serious and sensitive cases including assaults, sexual assaults, child abuse and grievous bodily harm. Our volunteer magistrates do an excellent job but they are completely unequipped to try complex multi-day trials … It would be a car crash if they tried to do it , especially at this time.”
The CBA warned that the New Proposal would heep more middle-ranking cases a year onto the magistrates’ courts where life changing (and in some cases ‘threatening’) decisions would be made by unpaid, unqualified volunteers.
“Justice needs juries … Nothing inspires more public trust than 12 ordinary citizens from all walks of life deciding the facts of a case together … We are pleased that the government is going ahead with important changes in the bill to protect victims and witnesses at trial. These include new powers to prevent unfair questioning about a complainant’s behaviour and to support witnesses to give their best evidence.”
The Bar Council
Kirsty Brimelow Chairman of the Bar Council speaking to the ‘Times Radio’ acknowledged the “significant and welcome moves away from curbing [a jury trial system] “that actually works.” But confirmed that the Bar Council remained opposed to expanding magistrates sentencing powers and to removing the right to elect. She kindly summarised her message to the government in simple terms:
“Leave juries alone!”
The Victims Commissioner
Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner was not happy stating her victims needed to know:
“Whether what remains will be enough to meet the challenge … They need to know this is genuine reform … Rather than an easy compromise that delivers only marginal improvements … The lessons from the prison crisis should be clear: postponing difficult decisions rarely solves problems. More often, it simply stores them up for the future.”
Mainstream Media
In general, the mainstream media were misdirected by Mr Norris' announcement and are reporting that the abolition of juries has been scrapped. It has not.
HELP & ASSISTANCE
As of 2026 our office no longer accept instructions from the public directly but through solicitor firms and authorised bodies only. For help and support, a list of practicing criminal solicitors can be found on the Law Society of England & Wales webpage accessible by clicking here.
NEVER SPEAK TO ANY MEMBER OF THE POLICE FORCE
WITHOUT FIRST TAKING PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE
