Juryless trials won’t fix a broken court system

Introducing juryless trials isn’t the salve that’s needed to heal our broken court system. As many have already said, removing a fundamental cornerstone of our justice system should be treated with concern. And there are big doubts around how much removing juries from trials will solve the chronic backlog our court system is experiencing, said to be 80,000 outstanding cases as of early 2026, more than double the 2019 levels.

Court delays certainly need to be addressed with great urgency. This is particularly true for survivors of abuse, for whom the delays cause an acute form of pain and stress. It takes a huge amount of strength and fortitude to gear up for a criminal trial where you could be facing your abuser and disclosing some of the worst things to ever happen to you. Imagine going through the mental gymnastics of preparing for that experience, only to be told at the last minute that the case is going to be delayed by another 12 months? That is sadly a reality facing many. In England and Wales, rape survivors are currently waiting an average of more than 16 months for their cases to go to court, which is significantly longer than for other types of crime. The delays are also likely to be a deterrent to someone considering reporting a rape or other serious sexual assault. 

In March last year, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Baroness Newlove, said: "The crisis in our Crown Courts is also placing immense pressure on our vital victim services, already stretched thin with growing waiting lists.... But with funding cuts looming, we face the very real threat of reduced support. I fear this will drive some victims to give up on seeking justice altogether – a second injustice compounding the first.”

We also see many people drop out of the process – for example, data from last year showed that up to 74% of rape allegations associated with domestic abuse result in the victim withdrawing from the process due to the delays. Their lives are in limbo, waiting for a conclusion, and understandably, some people can’t wait any longer.

On the question of whether the removal of juries could encourage or deter survivors from reporting the abuse they have experienced, there are clear arguments on either side.

A jury of lay people bring their own valuable life experience to the courtroom, and the right to a trial by jury is considered a key human right. Without juries deciding cases, we could see instances of survivors who have been abused by an employee of the state – a teacher, for example – being investigated by the state, prosecuted by the state, and having their abuser’s guilt or innocence decided by the state. However, there is an argument that a trial without a jury could potentially encourage people to come forward after a rape. This was certainly the argument of groups like Rape Crisis Scotland, who supported the proposal of juryless rape trials in Scotland, although these proposals were scrapped due to concerns about human rights law breaches.

Ultimately, introducing juryless trials may not meet the intended aim – to clear the backlog of court cases. The backlog has been created by court closures and chronic underinvestment in the system over a period of years. This change is a big gamble when we’re not sure it will achieve the intended aim. 

From an access to justice perspective, there are also questions to be answered. 

It is not clear what mechanism will be used to decide whether an accused charged with an offence is likely to receive a sentence of up to three years (when a juryless trial would be used). But assuming the defence has a say, this could create a perverse incentive for them to characterise alleged offences as being more serious to get the case before a jury. This could undermine the very purpose of the plan to reduce delays.