Clearing the court backlog without losing juries

The end game is to reduce the court backlog. Many of us desperately want to achieve this by retaining judgement by peers alongside an increased efficiency in using every courtroom every day. We can do this, but the plan needs to change.

Shortage of magistrates

The initial plan was to maintain ‘trial by peers’ by sitting two lay magistrates with a judge. It isn’t surprising that this was abandoned. There is already a shortage of magistrates without creating yet another function. Recruitment of volunteers is not easy. The commitment of 13 sitting days per year for 5 years, and 10 training days within the first 2 years is a big ask.

In January 2022 there was a £1million recruitment campaign to recruit 4000 new magistrates. By April 2024, only 2,008 new magistrates had been appointed. This doesn’t bode well for an identical plea to the public.

The recruitment criteria are understandably tight, and the application process can take a year or more. This fact alone can act as a deterrent. The success rate of applicants in the year ending March 2025 was only 22% (894 out of 4112 applicants).  

Increase of magistrates’ powers and workload

Nevertheless, the other proposal which impacts on the magistracy is currently intact. This is to remove the right to elect trial by jury on either-way offences. If the magistrates consider that the case falls within their increased sentencing power of 18 months custody, it will remain with them. 

We await part 2 of the Leveson report for statistical analysis. In the meantime, we have some bland figures to assess how this may play out. Of the Crown Court custodial sentences imposed in the year up to June 2025, 23,059 were for 18 months or less. This constitutes 47% of the total Crown Court custodial sentences (48,459). If the projected sentence is up to 18 months custody, those cases will stay for both trial and sentence. An immense chunk of work will be released from the Crown Court. 

Additional district judges in the magistrates’ court will be needed, particularly to help with the additional sentencing workload, but it surely raises the question of whether the separate ‘single judge’ jurisdiction is also necessary. 

‘Trial only’ panel

Additional magistrates will obviously be essential, but there has to be a different approach to achieve this. I suggest a specialist ‘trials panel’ in the same mode as the youth and family panels. 

They could sit as two ‘trial only’ magistrates with a qualified presiding justice. The recruitment criteria would essentially be the same as for jury service. No extra hoops. 

In terms of commitment - one day of training would cover conduct and process. The minimum sitting period would realistically be 20 days in the year of application. A very different type of commitment so this would attract a different field of applicants. This could attract those with immediate, possibly short-term availability such as students and seasonal workers, in addition to those volunteering for the longer term.

It will certainly help to address the current diversity problem with applicants for the magistracy. Last year only 23% were under 40 years old, 72% had a university education, and only 1% of shortlisted applicants were Black.

The courtroom space is there to be utilised whether in the magistrates’ or crown court buildings. Two final nuggets. We need a professional recruitment campaign for more legal advisers which recognizes their crucial role in advising lay magistrates. We also need to maintain the right of appeal to the Crown Court – there is no evidence that this is either overburdened or abused. 

The backlog must go and the court system must change to make that happen. Judgement by peers should remain, whether by jury or by magistrates depending on seriousness. This is realistic. It basically requires a new ‘fast-track’ option within the next recruitment campaign to apply for the ‘trial only panel’ to get things moving.