The House Article | Not even barristers think jury trials are behind the court backlog

4 min read1 hr

Proposals to curtail jury trials within the Courts and Tribunals Bill are being framed as a necessary response to the growing backlog in the criminal courts. This narrative is not just misleading. It risks obscuring the real causes of delay while undermining one of the cornerstones of our justice system. 

I recently visited Birmingham Crown Court, the second-largest court in the country, a visit that laid bare a system under acute strain. Yet, contrary to political rhetoric, juries are not the source of the problem. As one barrister put it bluntly: “You won’t find a single person in this building who thinks juries are an issue.” What I observed instead was a system buckling under the weight of cumulative failures across every stage of the justice process. 

Cases are routinely listed before they are trial-ready, with evidence arriving late, sometimes days before proceedings begin. In one case, we observed, crucial CCTV footage had only been received that week. Even when cases are ready, inefficiencies persist. Courtrooms sit empty (one to two at Birmingham on any given day, and even more in nearby courts) while multiple cases are scheduled for the same time slot, creating confusion and frustration for all involved.

Defendants are often held in prisons far from the courts where they are being tried, sometimes being transported back and forth daily across significant distances. Delays in prisoner transport are common, exacerbated by the removal of contractual penalties for lateness since the pandemic. Barristers frequently have little or no time to consult with their clients before proceedings begin. 

The physical condition of court buildings further reflects systemic neglect. At Birmingham Crown Court, basic infrastructure is failing: lifts are frequently out of order, limiting accessibility; the cafeteria has closed, affecting staff wellbeing and morale; and some courtrooms lack adequate technology. Even the design of courtroom furniture has not kept pace with modern expectations, with one barrister pointing out to me that the desks are designed for men. 

The human cost of these failures is profound. Victims are being asked to endure long waits for justice. Witnesses, too, are left without adequate support – Birmingham Crown Court has one break room for all the witnesses across all the cases present that day.  

For those working within the system, the pressures are immense. Criminal barristers face unpredictable pay, often waiting until the conclusion of a case to be compensated for their work, if the case proceeds at all. The emotional toll is particularly acute for those handling the most serious offences, such as rape and sexual assault, and there is a lack of mental health support available. Furthermore, high training costs and low pay deter new entrants, limiting diversity and social mobility within the profession. 

Against this backdrop, the proposal to scrap jury trials is not only misguided but harmful. Juries play a vital role in ensuring fairness and public confidence in the justice system, and they bring a diversity of perspectives that is often lacking in the judiciary.  

Ultimately, the focus on jury trials as the cause of court delays is a distraction. The real issues lie in chronic underinvestment, poor coordination, and systemic inefficiencies that span the entire justice process. Reform is undoubtedly needed, but it must target these root causes, not one of the system’s most vital safeguards. 

In light of these realities, there is a strong case for caution as the legislation continues its passage through Parliament. There are already examples of good practice in Preston and Liverpool, where court backlogs have been brought down by carefully managing cases and listings and fast-tracking certain trials. This proves that backlogs can be reduced without legislation changes and, crucially, without removing juries. There is no doubt, though, that significant investment is needed long-term to ensure our courts run efficiently and justice is delivered.  

I hope the government continues to listen and reflect on the concerns raised by both MPs and those working in the courts, and looks to implement practical steps that make a tangible difference. The Bill is currently in Committee Stage, and I hope changes can be made before it returns to the Commons for further debate. 

Cat Eccles is the Labour MP for Stourbridge