For centuries, the jury has stood as one of the most recognisable symbols of British justice: ordinary citizens sitting alongside the machinery of the state to decide the fate of the accused.
Now, after an extraordinary political backlash, ministers in England and Wales have decided that this tradition will not be cut back as dramatically as previously proposed.
The government has abandoned plans to remove jury trials from thousands of defendants whose offences could have resulted in sentences of up to three years. Instead, most Crown Court cases will continue to be heard by judges and juries — a decision welcomed by lawyers who had warned that weakening the right to trial by jury would represent a profound change to the justice system.
But the government has not solved the problem that triggered the controversy.
England and Wales are facing a criminal court backlog of almost 81,000 Crown Court cases, with projections suggesting the figure could climb towards 100,000. For victims, witnesses and defendants, that can mean years of uncertainty before a case reaches its conclusion.
Justice Secretary Alex Norris has therefore attempted to present the reversal not as retreat, but as a change of strategy.
His argument is simple: ministers believe they can begin tackling the backlog sooner by avoiding the time required to establish a new system of judge-only Crown Court benches.
The political calculation, however, is far more complicated.
The original proposals emerged from recommendations by former judge Sir Brian Leveson, commissioned after mounting fears that the criminal justice system was approaching breaking point. Former justice secretary David Lammy backed reforms that would have significantly expanded judge-alone trials.
That proposal triggered fierce resistance from sections of the legal profession and even opposition among some Labour MPs.
Critics argued that the government was attempting to solve an administrative crisis by weakening one of the oldest protections available to defendants.
Now ministers have stepped away from the most controversial part of the plan — but not from reform altogether.
Judge-only trials will remain possible in a narrow category of exceptionally long and technically complex fraud cases, where a judge determines that a jury trial would be unsuitable.
Other changes are also staying.
Defendants charged with certain “either way” offences will no longer have the same power to choose between a Crown Court jury trial and a magistrates’ court hearing. Magistrates will make that decision.
At the same time, magistrates’ sentencing powers are still scheduled to increase from the current 12-month maximum to 18 months, with the possibility of extending that to two years.
That has immediately created a second battleground.
The Bar Council of England and Wales, while welcoming the reversal on jury trials, warned against expanding magistrates’ powers while prisons are already under pressure and the magistrates’ court backlog is growing.
There is also concern that the reforms could affect different communities unevenly. Bar Council chair Kirsty Brimelow pointed to evidence that women, Black and mixed-race people, and older people elect jury trials at higher rates than some other groups.
The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether Britain will protect jury trials.
It is whether the government can modernise a struggling justice system without making vulnerable groups feel that justice itself is becoming less equal.
The victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, delivered perhaps the starkest warning. Victims, she argued, have every right to question whether the remaining reforms are powerful enough to tackle the enormous backlog.
That is the uncomfortable paradox at the heart of this political U-turn.
The government has protected a historic principle — but it still has to fix a system that is running out of time.
Ministers are considering other tools, including artificial intelligence to assist with case listing, greater use of virtual hearings and measures to ensure defendants arrive at court on time.
But technology and administrative efficiency can only go so far.
Behind every statistic in the backlog is a person waiting: a victim waiting for an answer, a witness waiting to be heard, or an accused person living under the weight of an unresolved allegation.
Britain may have stepped back from reducing jury trials.
Now it must prove that it has another route forward.
Because protecting the right to a jury means little if the people waiting for justice are left waiting indefinitely.
