How are speeches selected and edited?
- Quotes and speeches are selected on the basis of their relevance and notability - whether they bring new information to a debate, are rhetorically interesting, or whether they are interesting in the context of their speaker.
- Omissions to speeches are noted by ellipses (...) but are otherwise as recorded in Hansard.
- Not all speeches are selected here.
- AI is used to draft articles summarising Parliamentary debates. All summaries are reviewed and edited manually before publication. You can read the script used to generate the summaries.
Jury Trials
Edited by Peter Warrington, 2026-06-12 Debates in the Commons and the Lords over Government proposals to restrict the right to a jury trial in order to clear the court backlog.Jury trials in England and Wales for crimes that carry a likely sentence of less than three years will be scrapped, the justice secretary has announced.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo 2nd December 2025
Key Quotes:
“Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice… If even the Justice Secretary knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?” - Nick Timothy (Conservative)
“The human side of the British constitution in the past has relied on three feeder streams…: the civility stream, the way we conduct our political arguments; the tolerance stream, the attitude we take to the losing side in said arguments; and the duty of care stream… It is the confluence of these sustaining streams on which the buoyancy of our entire system of government depends.” - Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (Crossbench)
“Reducing jury trial is one of the fundamental ways in which citizen participation is being undermined.” - Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
“It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one… When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?” - Karl Turner (Independent)
House of Commons Jury Trials Debate - 03 February 2026
The House of Commons met to hear proposals from the Justice Secretary, David Lammy (Labour), on tackling the backlog in the courts service:
… Our focus is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. That is why I will bring forward bold change to fix the rotting Courts Service that we inherited, deliver record investment in our courts so that they can sit for more days than ever before, introduce modernisation to deal with the inefficiencies that we inherited, and reform the system so that we can triage which trials get a jury and stop criminals gaming the system.
Sir John Hayes (Conservative) challenged the Minister on the constitutional significance of the proposals:
… The age-old jury system connects the public to the exercise of law, and is therefore at the heart of popular consent for criminal justice. In abandoning this link, are the Government careless of the accountability that it brings, or are they driven wholly by thoughtless expediency? Are Ministers careless or thoughtless?
The shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Timothy (Conservative), questioned the Justice Secretary by quoting his own colleagues back to him:
… Forty of the right hon. Member’s colleagues—the number is rising—say that restricting jury trials is “madness”. He says that he will not listen to them, judges, lawyers or the victims of crime, so perhaps he will listen to these esteemed voices.
“Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.”—That was the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. “There must be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”—that was the Sentencing Minister.
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are…perceived as unfair.”
That was the Justice Secretary himself. If even he knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?
David Lammy (Labour) responded:
… Article 40 of Magna Carta makes it clear that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is our judgment and the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson that, for example, if someone has shoplifted an iPhone, they should not be entitled to elect for a jury trial. That should be something that can be dealt with by a magistrate or a single judge.
On February 5th, Gareth Bacon (Conservative) pressed the Solicitor General on wider opposition to the plans:
The president of the Law Society has described the proposals as “an extreme measure that goes too far”. The chair of the Criminal Bar Association has described them as “a wrecking ball to a system that is fundamentally sound and has been in place for generations”. He pointed out that the juries are not the cause of the backlogs. The Government’s own Back-Bench MPs have described the proposals as a “dereliction of duty”, “a ludicrous proposal that will not work”… Why do the Government think that they are all wrong?
House of Lords King’s Speech Debate - May 18th 2026
Following the state opening of Parliament, the House of Lords debated the upcoming legislative agenda. Baroness Levitt (Labour) opened the debate on justice reform:
… Whether your Lordships belong to a particular political grouping or to none, I think we can all agree that our criminal justice system is struggling… Today, the backlog of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is over 80,000. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery, so we must act.
We are implementing a package of reforms… The third element… is to introduce modernising reforms. We will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. For reasons that, I must confess, I have been a bit mystified by, this has attracted huge controversy. The reason I am mystified by it is that this Government are doing only what pretty much every other Government have done in the past, including Conservative Governments… We just move the line as to which cases are tried in the magistrates’ court and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court… This is a sensible and proportionate response to the changing nature of criminal offences…
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative) responded for the Opposition, warning of the wider implications for the judiciary:
… At the centre of the Government’s programme for justice reform is the courts modernisation Bill… We on these Benches do not dispute the seriousness of the backlog. Victims are waiting years for justice and defendants are left in limbo… But the fact that a problem is serious is no justification for some of the alarming solutions proposed.
A jury trial should not be viewed as an administrative inconvenience. It is a central safeguard of liberty in our constitutional order. The right to be judged by one’s peers has endured precisely because it protects the individual from the unchecked power of the state… We have a judiciary in this country of the highest quality, but it is not reflective of the society in which we live. At the moment, we, so to speak, get away with it in our criminal justice system because juries are representative. If we do away with juries, and defendants walk in and see a judge and perhaps two magistrates who do not look like them… that will lead to demands for different ways of appointing our judges and, perhaps, for radical reform of our judiciary…
Delivering his maiden speech, the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case (Crossbench), urged caution regarding constitutional shifts:
… Our sovereign’s appearance last week was also a reminder of the balance struck within our modern constitutional settlement… If we are to sustain our tradition of a largely unwritten and therefore dynamic constitution, we must be for ever mindful of its inherent fragility. The flexibility we celebrate can so easily become the catastrophe we regret. Herein lies the essential teaching. As each of us takes our place in line between those who came before and those who will come after, we must recognise our greatest duty of all: that of stewardship. Individually and collectively we are required to make sure that, as our precious union continues its steady stroll through time, decisions, especially those that affect our constitutional foundations, are taken deliberately and thoughtfully, not blithely nor under anaesthesia…
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (Crossbench) delivered his valedictory speech, warning against a decline in political standards:
… I offer a few parting thoughts about the British constitution. To put it as pithily as I can, I am more anxious about it than I have ever been. Our constitution has been seriously stress-tested in the years since I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010. Since then, there have been some scarring moments—for example, when the highest in the political land ignored or disdained it when the constitutional decencies and proprieties etched into the Ministerial Code got in his way…
The human side of the British constitution in the past has relied on three feeder streams… the civility stream… the tolerance stream… and the duty of care stream… In the end, the vitality and strength of the British constitution do depend on the sense of duty, public service and restraint of those set in authority above us… For it is the politics of decency that is our greatest protection against a slide into the politics of despair, out of whose dark crevices authoritarianism can slink. To so mobilise would require no new statute from Parliament and not a penny from the Treasury, for it is a matter of spirit, a question of faith…
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour) strongly opposed her own government’s bill:
… I want to talk today about the folly that I think is contained in these reforms to jury trial… One of the things that citizens value, however, is that they bring something to the justice system, which you do not get anywhere else; they bring their experience of the community to the system. It is that lay participation… that enriches the system, building trust and confidence in it… Reducing jury trial is one of the fundamental ways in which citizen participation is being undermined… I agree that there is an alarming backlog of cases… but everyone—including Sir Brian Leveson, who provided the recommendations—agreed that the backlog was largely a result of chronic underfunding… It is a piece of spin to secure the support of a group of people who have been failed disgracefully by the criminal justice system… My message to the Government is: think again.
Jury Trial Proposals at Justice Questions - May 19th 2026
The debate continued in the Commons, where Karl Turner (Independent) pressed the Justice Secretary:
It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea. The leader of Scottish Labour was opposed to this idea… When is the Justice Secretary going to get his ego out the way and bin the ludicrous idea of curtailing jury trials?
David Lammy (Labour) defended the government’s approach:
… We are determined to bring down the backlog. The hon. Gentleman knows that Governments of all stripes stand by our jury system and stand by Magna Carta. We are not scrapping jury trials.
Winding up the debate for the Government in the Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour) maintained that the Bill was essential to their legislative programme:
… There has been significant discussion of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. We are not going to achieve consensus here today… On justice and reoffending, we are in favour of strong community punishments, we are investing in probation, we have increased the number of sitting days and, through the Victims and Courts Act, we have invested £550 million over the next three years in victim services… This King’s Speech is about reform. It is about continuing the work that we have done in government to make a difference on key issues… I suggest that as a second-term programme in government, this is a solid amount of work.