Labour’s court reforms could lead to ‘two-tier justice’ with judge-only fraud trials

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, October 14, 2026

The UK Government is introducing reforms to allow judge-only trials for certain complex fraud cases to improve efficiency in lengthy proceedings. Critics warn that this change risks creating a two-tier justice system by limiting defendants’ right to jury trials, raising concerns about fairness and public confidence.

The UK Government is moving forward with reforms that would permit judge-only trials in certain complex fraud cases, sparking concerns about the emergence of a "two-tier justice" system. The proposed changes aim to address challenges posed by lengthy and complicated trials, but critics caution that they could undermine the principle of trial by jury.

Under the planned measures, judge-only trials would be allowed initially for fraud cases deemed particularly complex and protracted. This shift comes after the Government abandoned broader proposals to curtail the use of juries more generally.

Andrew Thomas KC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents approximately 3,000 defence barristers, voiced strong opposition to the reforms. He argued that all defendants, regardless of wealth or status, should retain the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. “The CBA opposes the creation of a two-tier justice system, whether for fraud or any other offence,” Thomas said, emphasizing the importance of equal access to jury trials as a cornerstone of justice.

Justice Minister Sarah Sackman acknowledged the concerns but defended the reforms, stating there is a “strong case” for using judge-only trials in a limited number of complex and lengthy fraud cases. Sackman suggested that these measures are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process in instances where jury trials may be especially challenging to manage.

The debate reflects ongoing tensions between maintaining traditional jury trial rights and adapting the court system to handle increasingly complicated financial crime cases. Proponents argue that experienced judges are better equipped to navigate intricate evidence and lengthy testimony, potentially reducing costs and delays. Opponents warn that removing juries from such trials could erode public confidence and create inequalities in how justice is administered.

As the Government advances its proposals, legal professionals continue to stress the need for careful consideration to balance fairness, transparency, and practicality within the criminal justice system.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.