Veteran barrister Michael Mansfield has voiced strong concerns over proposed legislation that would significantly reduce the number of jury trials in England and Wales. The bill, introduced by the government under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, aims to address mounting delays in the criminal justice system by increasing the number of cases heard solely by judges.
Mansfield, who has a long history of representing individuals in high-profile miscarriage of justice cases such as the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, cautioned that the reforms could exacerbate wrongful convictions. Speaking on a University of Law podcast, he argued that shifting trials from juries to judges would not necessarily resolve the backlog in crown courts, but rather risk creating a system biased toward convictions. “If it had been left to judges, we’d have very different decisions,” Mansfield said, expressing concern over what he described as the potential emergence of a “heavily convicting regime.”
The bill proposes that many criminal offences currently tried by juries would instead be decided by a single judge, halving the number of jury trials. Proponents argue this change is essential to improve efficiency, given growing court delays. However, critics—including opposition politicians and some members of the Labour Party—have warned that the reforms undermine long-standing rights of defendants in serious criminal cases.
Mansfield challenged the assumption underpinning the bill that jury trials are chiefly responsible for the length of cases. He pointed out that evidence must be heard fully regardless of whether a judge or jury delivers the verdict, attributing delays instead to insufficient funding for the courts and police services.
Recent reports indicate that Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, might reconsider or amend these plans. Previously, the legislation was closely associated with David Lammy, the former justice secretary who was removed from the Cabinet in July. One potential revision under discussion would grant judges authority to determine which cases proceed to jury trial, though such a move could prompt legal challenges from defendants denied this right.
As the debate continues, the legislation remains a focal point in discussions about balancing judicial efficiency with the protection of defendants’ rights.