The state of the criminal justice system has been in increasingly sharp focus since the publication of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts – Part 1 (‘the Leveson Review’) in July 2025 and even more so since the recent government proposals were announced.

In the Red Lion Chambers Focus on Fraud blog we have published analysis of the proposed removal of the right to jury trial in serious and complex fraud, including pieces by HH Geoffrey Rivlin KC which provide withering critiques of the proposals from the viewpoint of a very experienced fraud judge.

The proposal to remove jury trial in serious fraud requires consideration of the historical context to the debate, ongoing for 40 years. In doing so, it becomes clear that the proposal, while radical, is far from novel.

Early proposals

The Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials (1983-86) proposed an alternative to trial by jury – the ability to elect trial by a judge and two professional lay members. The rationale was that juries could not understand complex cases. Even then there was powerful dissent. Solicitor Walter Merricks identified that evidence relied on was ‘only anecdotal and second-hand’ and did not point unambiguously to jurors not understanding fraud cases.

Lord Devlin, responding to the proposals, argued that it was more or less a convention of the constitution that citizens should not be liable to more than a limited term of imprisonment otherwise than by a jury verdict. The then Conservative Home Secretary (Douglas Hurd) asked in the Parliamentary debate: ‘In our system of open justice is it right that those who risk substantial terms of imprisonment should forfeit the right to be tried by a jury…, not because their crime was more serious but because it was more intricate than the next man’s?’ While many of Lord Roskill’s proposed reforms were implemented, jury trial in serious and complex fraud survived.

Developments over time

The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1991 (the ‘Runciman Commission’) concluded that there was ‘no evidence’ to support juryless trials, recommending that s 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 be amended to allow further research on juries to facilitate informed debate.

In 2001, Lord Justice Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts concluded that amending s 8 would be too intrusive, but went on to recommend that trial judges should have the power to direct trial by single judge and two lay panel members or, if the defendant elected, by judge alone, in cases of serious and complex fraud – the basis being growing sophistication and complexity within fraud, increasing the difficulties for juries to understand cases and the burden of long trials.

Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sought to give effect to the recommendation. It provided for a judge to order the case to be conducted without a jury if satisfied that the length or complexity of the case was likely to make the trial so burdensome for jurors that the interests of justice required trial without jury. The then Lord Chancellor explained it was not about competence but the burden on the jury and steps required to make jury trial manageable. Fierce opposition across the political spectrum meant it was not brought into force. It was argued in both Houses that there was no evidence that juries did not understand fraud trials; that juries commanded greater trust among the public (including among ethnic minorities); that there was no principled basis to distinguish complex fraud from other offences; and ultimately little time or money would be saved.

The Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill (2007) was a government attempt to implement s 43, adding requirements that consent of the Lord Chief Justice be given and High Court judges hear applications. These concessions proved insufficient: although the Bill was passed in the Commons, it was rejected by the Lords in March 2007. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, threatened to invoke the Parliament Act, but eventually backed down.

Section 113 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 finally repealed the proposed s 43 altogether, the Coalition government having determined that, ‘in fraud cases, even the longest ones, jury trial will work’.

The recent past

In 2015, Sir Brian Leveson published a Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings. The out-of-scope observations suggested expense would be reduced if complex trials were conducted by judges (with assessors) – though it did not propose further consideration be given to a proposal that had so recently been rejected by Parliament.

Sir David Calvert-Smith’s report on Complex and Lengthy Trials published by JUSTICE in 2016, concluded there was no compelling evidence to support the argument that juries were unable to understand the evidence in complex trials; in the vast majority of cases the issues were focused on dishonesty, knowledge or participation.

The present debate

Since the 2025 Leveson Review was published, David Lammy has been appointed Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister. In 2017, Mr Lammy published his Independent Review into the treatment of, and outcomes for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. The Review provided a resounding endorsement of juries. Particular attention was drawn to evidence (from Professor Cheryl Thomas KC (Hon)’s research) that juries deliver equitable results that are not different for BAME and White defendants. The Review termed juries a ‘success story of our justice system’ and raised that, ‘the positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts’. Against that background, resistance might have been expected from the new Lord Chancellor. However, his proposals have sought to restrict the right to trial by jury even further than proposed by the Leveson Review.

During the Parliamentary debate on 14 October 2025, the importance of jury trials and fairness of juries, particularly in being non-discriminatory, was a recurring theme. Furthermore, MPs highlighted the lack of convincing evidence that complex cases added to the backlog, or that the removal of juries would materially speed up the trial process. Tellingly, much of the discourse focused on other areas connected to the forthcoming efficiency review such as the condition of court buildings, increasing the number of sitting days, having sufficient judges/barristers for cases and getting defendants from custody to court on time.

The government did not make its position clear at this debate. Since then, the ‘swift and fair plan to get justice for victims’ was announced. Within that package of measures is a proposal for judge-only trials for particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences. The announcement refers to ‘freeing up jurors who have to give up months of their lives to hear particularly burdensome cases’ and the impact the package will have on the backlog. Evaluations of claims regarding disruption to jurors’ lives and the likelihood of judge only trials reducing the backlog are set out in the Red Lion Chambers’ Focus publications. In short, the evidential basis for removing the right to jury trial is far from made out.

It should also be noted that the addition of ‘swift courts’ will take judges out of circulation to try the remaining jury trials; while increasing the number of cases to be tried in the Magistrates’ Court will inevitably add to the backlog of cases there (currently over 360,000) and from where will the extra, volunteer magistrates required to try these cases be recruited?

There is consensus among practitioners, Parliamentarians and the public alike that the criminal justice system cannot continue as is. The answer may well require ‘a radical and essential package of measures… to prevent total collapse’ as the Leveson Review states, but resolution of the crisis does not, we would argue, lie in reheating old ideas of juryless trials that have been roundly rejected before. 

The Red Lion Chambers Focus on Fraud blog.