Proposals to limit jury trials could be watered down after a backlash from MPs, peers and senior figures in the legal profession, the Guardian has been told.
Sources say senior government officials are discussing potential changes in an attempt to draw the sting out of the plans and avoid a bruising fight in the House of Lords.
David Lammy, the justice secretary, is understood to be pushing ahead with the plans in their current form, including plans for a new criminal court where judges will hear cases on their own in an attempt to cut the courts backlog.
But officials are concerned that they may struggle to get the package through the upper chamber without having to make a compromise, adding to a series of high-profile government U-turns.
Any compromise is likely to include changing the measures so that two lay people sit alongside judges in so-called “swift courts”, as originally proposed by Brian Leveson in his recent review of the challenges facing the legal system in England and Wales.
One government source said: “We’ve had U-turns in recent months on inheritance tax for farmers and business rates for pubs, there is a risk that the next one is going to have to be jury trials.
“If we do have to compromise, it is obvious where we would do so. Generally going back to the Leveson proposals is where we would probably end up. And that would include having two lay magistrates sit with judges for trials.”
Another person aware of the discussions within government said: “Ministers are confident they can get the package through the Commons, even with the opposition of some high-profile Labour MPs. The real battle lies in the Lords.”
Under Lammy’s proposals, which would be the biggest shake-up of the English court system in a generation, defendants who are likely to receive a sentence of three years or less would no longer get a jury trial.
A new judge-only swift court would be set up to hear cases without juries, and magistrates would be allowed to sentence people to a maximum of 18 months, up from the 12 months they can hand down now.
Ministers have said the move is necessary to halve the number of jury trials from 15,000 a year and to tackle the backlog of court cases that built up over the Covid pandemic.
Lammy told the Guardian this weekend the measures would allow the government to clear the backlog of 80,000 cases in a decade.
Speaking while on a trip to Canada, where a single judge can give sentences of up to three years, Lammy said: “It has been happening in Canada for decades. It is very normal.”
However, the justice secretary is facing a significant backlash from the legal profession, dozens of Labour MPs and peers from across the upper chamber.
The Labour MP and former shadow attorney general Karl Turner has said he could stand down, thus triggering a byelection, unless the government scraps its plans.
However, officials are understood to be more concerned about the reception in the Lords, where many recent pieces of government legislation have struggled.
Sources say that if they do have to back down, they are likely to retreat to a position closer to that originally suggested by Leveson, whose proposals were strengthened in several significant areas.
Probably the most contested proposal was to change Leveson’s recommendation of a new criminal court with a judge sitting with two magistrates to one that has a judge sitting alone, thereby removing lay participation.
Ministers also recommended expanding the threshold for cases to be heard in the new court from those with a maximum sentence of two years, as Leveson recommended, to crimes with a maximum three-year sentence.
This will impact on “either way” offences, where the defendant can decide whether they will be tried by a jury or magistrates.
Additionally ministers intend to boost magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers – which has in the past proved unpopular with lawyers – to 18 months or even two years if needed. The current maximum in magistrates courts is 12 months, which was only increased from six months in 2024.
The overall effect is that fewer offences – and so defendants – will meet the threshold for a jury trial and when they do not meet the threshold, unlike in Leveson’s proposals, there will be no non-professionals involved.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Only reform, combined with investment, will deliver swift and fair justice for victims. That’s why we are creating new swift courts, without magistrates and within the crown court, as well as investing millions in legal aid, the courts and increasing sitting days.”
