Why it matters: The Courts and Tribunals Bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 March by 304 votes to 203, would remove the right to a jury trial for a wide range of offences, including some that could result in a custodial sentence.
Ipswich MP Jack Abbott voted in favour of the change, but Suffolk's Law Society representative says the reforms risk making things worse, not better.
The details: The bill, introduced by Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, would scrap jury trials in England and Wales for crimes that carry a likely sentence of fewer than three years. Instead, volunteer community magistrates would take on more of those cases, with their maximum sentencing power raised to 18 months – and a reserve power of up to two years held in readiness.
Lammy argues the changes would free up "thousands of hearing days" in crown courts for more serious cases, warning that without action the current backlog of just under 80,000 cases could reach 200,000 by 2035.
"Victims are currently worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse, and offenders remain free," he told MPs. "To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available."
The local view: Duncan McGregor, the Law Society Council representative for Suffolk, told Ipswich.co.uk he does not believe the reforms will achieve their aim. "Shunting either way offences into the magistrates' courts will simply increase the backlog in the magistrates' courts," he said.
McGregor argues that what is needed instead includes longer sitting hours, more sitting days, greater use of video links, creative solutions to court capacity, and increased legal aid funding – noting that legal aid practitioners have not had a rate increase since the mid-1990s.
What the Law Society says: The Law Society of England and Wales has warned that "piecemeal reform" will not fix the backlog. Its immediate past president Richard Atkinson said: "A fair, coordinated, whole-system approach, including sustained investment in the workforce, infrastructure and technology, is needed to restore confidence in this vital public service."
The Law Society also said the government's modelling does not provide "good enough evidence that judge-only trials would reduce the backlogs," and warned that retrospectively removing the right to jury trial for defendants already in the system "will lead to legal challenges causing further delay and uncertainty for victims and defendants."
The other side: Dozens of female Labour MPs wrote to Lammy, urging him to "remain steadfast" in pursuing reform. Labour MP Natalie Fleet, who signed the letter, said: "You know what's worse than being raped? Facing years of waiting to see if people believe you. This is not about denying anybody justice. This is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice."
What they're saying in Parliament: The bill passed despite ten Labour MPs voting against it – among them John McDonnell and Nadia Whittome – and around 90 recording no vote. Whittome called it "a short-termist cost-cutting measure, which will further entrench discrimination and inequality." Conservative shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy accused the government of "rushing" the bill through Parliament "at breakneck speed," noting it was published fewer than two weeks before MPs were asked to approve its second reading.
Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fuller argued that limiting jury trials "won't shift the dial," calling trial by jury "one of the only parts of our justice system that is still actually trusted."
What's next: The bill now moves to its next parliamentary stage. Whether enough Labour MPs can be persuaded – or rebel in sufficient numbers – will determine its fate. Labour MP Karl Turner, a former barrister who abstained after speaking to Lammy, said he was confident "the worst parts of this bill" would be defeated at a later stage.
The bottom line: If the bill becomes law, people in our county accused of a broad range of offences will no longer be able to opt for a jury trial. Supporters say it will mean faster justice; critics – including Suffolk's own Law Society representative – say it risks simply shifting the backlog, while eroding a cornerstone of the English legal system.
