A deep and bitter rift over the future of trial by jury has been laid bare in Parliament, as the government’s controversial justice reforms passed their first Commons hurdle despite fierce internal and external opposition.
MPs voted 304 to 203 to give the Courts and Tribunals Bill a second reading, a victory for ministers who argue the system is broken and demands radical change. The legislation, introduced on 25 February 2026, now faces detailed scrutiny in committee, where significant amendments are expected.
The government’s central case rests on what it describes as a criminal justice system in crisis. With a record backlog of nearly 80,000 cases in the Crown Court – a figure projected to soar to 130,000 by 2030 without intervention – ministers insist the measures are essential to deliver swifter justice. They point to victims of rape and serious crime who have waited up to five years for their cases to be heard.
A Personal and Political Divide
The debate, however, was dominated by harrowing personal testimony from MPs on all sides of the argument, revealing a profound split even among those with direct experience of the system’s failures.
Labour minister Jess Phillips gave the bill her “100% support,” drawing on her own experience as a victim. She revealed a man accused of breaching a restraining order related to her would not have his case heard in crown court until 2028. “It’s OK for me. I’ve got extra security,” she said. “But imagine that was a breach of an order against a violent ex-husband… That’s absolutely mental.” She argued the “broken” court system is routinely used to delay trials and exert control over victims.
In stark contrast, her Labour colleague Charlotte Nichols, the MP for Warrington North, said she had been raped after a parliamentary event and fiercely opposed the reforms. “Experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised,” she told the Commons, accusing Justice Secretary David Lammy of using rape victims as a “cudgel” to drive through changes. She warned that transitioning away from jury trials could itself consume precious time in an overstretched system.
The Labour MP for Bolsover, Natalie Fleet, who was groomed and raped as a teenager, offered another perspective in support of the bill. “I can tell you from personal experience, you know what’s worse than being raped? Facing years of waiting to see if people believe you,” she said, arguing the status quo needed disruption for the benefit of women.
The Core Reforms and the Backlash
The bill proposes the most significant change to trial rights in generations. It will remove a defendant’s right to elect a crown court trial before a jury in “triable-either-way” cases where the anticipated sentence is three years or less. These cases would instead be heard by a single judge in a new Crown Court “Bench Division.” Magistrates’ sentencing powers will also increase from 12 to up to 24 months’ imprisonment.
Furthermore, the automatic right to appeal from magistrates’ courts to the crown court will be replaced with a permission stage, a move the government says will streamline the process.
Opposition to these plans is vehement and widespread. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform and the Greens opposed the bill. Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said Lammy had “struck the first blow against our ancient legal right to trial by jury.”
Beyond party lines, thousands of lawyers have written to the Prime Minister calling the plans “unpopular, untested and poorly evidenced.” The Law Society of England and Wales opposes any restriction on jury trials, while the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association has led protests. Jo Hamilton, a victim of the Horizon Post Office scandal, warned the plans would “further erode trust in the establishment.”
Concerns Over Justice and Equality
A core criticism focuses on the potential impact on ethnic minorities. Research suggests Black, Asian, and minority ethnic defendants are convicted at higher rates in magistrates’ courts than by juries. Critics argue juries act as a crucial safeguard against bias, a point underscored by David Lammy’s own 2017 review into racial bias in the justice system, which highlighted their importance for legitimacy among minority groups.
There are also doubts about the efficacy of the reforms. The Institute for Government has suggested the plan might save less than 2% of court time, with opponents arguing the backlog stems from chronic underfunding, not the jury system.
Despite the bill’s progress, its passage is not assured. Ten Labour MPs rebelled to vote against, including Karl Turner who led the internal opposition, branding parts of the bill “unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.” A further 90 MPs abstained or did not vote. Meanwhile, a group of 40 female Labour MPs, including former minister Anneliese Dodds, wrote to Lammy urging him to “remain steadfast,” highlighting the intolerable waits faced by victims of gender-based crime.
The bill now moves to committee stage, where the government will face intense pressure to amend its flagship reforms, setting the stage for a protracted battle over a fundamental pillar of British justice.
