Government’s jury trial reforms risk worsening criminal justice system performance

The government’s proposed reforms to jury trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and could lead to further declines in performance and productivity, warns a new Institute for Government report.

Published today, as MPs debate the Courts and Tribunals Bill, Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials says the government is right to try and address the dire situation facing criminal courts – but says there is considerable uncertainty attached to the proposed reforms.

The primary effect of the government’s bill is to reduce demand on the crown court by increasing the number of cases that are tried without a jury, raising magistrates’ sentencing powers and restricting the right of appeal from magistrates’ courts.

But the new IfG report warns that intensifying the nature of magistrates’ court work and setting up new judge-only trials will inevitably take time to bed in and could further distract from attempts to drive up productivity in the short to medium term. The report finds that:

• The reforms risk prioritising speed over fair justice by moving thousands of more serious cases into magistrates’ courts and severely restricting rights of appeal
• The projected savings from the government's court reforms remain highly uncertain.
• The reforms imply a 10–15% increase in demand on magistrates’ courts, which they will struggle to cope with in practice.
• Structural reforms are likely to impede attempts to improve productivity and may make the situation worse in the short- to medium-term.
• Pressure to move through cases quickly could increase the risk of ‘rough justice’ and serious mistakes being made.

Cassia Rowland, report author and IfG senior researcher said:

“The dire situation in the criminal courts requires action. But the government’s current proposals risk prioritising speed over justice by restricting people’s right both to a jury trial and to appeal. Having serious cases involving two years in prison decided by two or three volunteer magistrates would make England and Wales an outlier among our peers and pose a risk of miscarriages of justice.”