Justice secretary wants most jury trials scrapped – BBC

Report on Proposed Judicial Reforms in England and Wales and Their Alignment with SDG 16

A report on internal government proposals to reform the criminal justice system in England and Wales, analysing the potential impacts on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions.

1.0 Executive Summary

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is considering significant reforms to the criminal court system, primarily aimed at addressing extensive backlogs and improving institutional efficiency. The core proposal involves substantially restricting the right to a jury trial for most serious offences. While these measures are presented as a solution to enhance the effectiveness of judicial institutions, in line with SDG Target 16.6, they have elicited significant concern from legal and political stakeholders who argue the changes could undermine SDG Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice) and SDG Target 16.7 (Ensure responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making).

2.0 Analysis of the Proposed Reforms

2.1 Core Components of the Proposal

An internal MoJ briefing outlines a plan to fundamentally alter trial procedures to manage a backlog exceeding 78,000 cases. The key elements include:

• Restriction of Jury Trials: The right to a trial by jury would be guaranteed only for the most severe offences, such as murder, manslaughter, and rape, or in cases passing a specific public interest test.
• Creation of a New Court Tier: A new “Crown Court Bench Division” (CCBD) would be established to hear cases by a judge alone. This tier would handle offences likely to result in a custodial sentence of up to five years.
• Special Provisions: Trials for complex fraud and financial offences could be conducted by a judge alone if deemed suitably technical.

2.2 Stated Rationale: Enhancing Institutional Effectiveness (SDG Target 16.6)

The primary driver for the proposed reforms is the critical state of the Crown Court system, which faces unprecedented delays. Current projections indicate that suspects charged today may not face trial until 2029 or 2030, with the caseload expected to surpass 100,000. The government’s objective is to create a more timely and efficient justice system, thereby developing more effective and accountable institutions as called for in SDG Target 16.6.

3.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16

3.1 The Rule of Law and Equal Access to Justice (SDG Target 16.3)

The proposal creates a direct tension with the goal of ensuring equal access to justice for all. While the MoJ asserts that the reforms “will not compromise the right to a fair trial,” this view is not shared by numerous experts.

1. Erosion of Foundational Principles: Critics, including former judges and the Criminal Bar Association, argue that trial by a jury of one’s peers is a cornerstone of the justice system. Removing this right is seen as an “absolutely fundamental change” that could diminish fairness and the quality of justice.
2. Public Trust and Legitimacy: The participation of ordinary citizens through juries is considered a vital component for maintaining public trust in the justice system. Opponents argue that its removal risks undermining the very foundation of justice, thereby weakening the rule of law.
3. Misdiagnosis of Systemic Failures: The Criminal Bar Association contends that the backlog is not caused by juries but by years of systemic underfunding and neglect. The proposal, therefore, fails to address the root cause of the inefficiency, which is a key barrier to accessing justice.

3.2 Participatory Decision-Making and Strong Institutions (SDG Target 16.7)

SDG Target 16.7 emphasizes the need for responsive, inclusive, and participatory institutions. The jury system is a primary mechanism for public participation in the judicial process.

• Reduced Public Participation: The reforms would significantly curtail the role of citizens in the administration of justice. Legal experts like Baroness Helena Kennedy highlight that public participation in courtrooms is a “vital proponent” of a healthy justice system, particularly when trust in institutions is low.
• Weakening Institutional Accountability: By concentrating judicial power in the hands of a single judge for a wider range of serious offences, the proposal is viewed by critics as a move away from a participatory and representative model of justice, potentially reducing institutional accountability to the public it serves.

4.0 Conclusion

The proposed reforms to the criminal justice system in England and Wales represent a significant policy choice with profound implications for the advancement of SDG 16. While intended to address institutional inefficiencies (SDG 16.6) by reducing court backlogs, the plan to restrict jury trials is widely seen by legal professionals and political opponents as a direct threat to other core tenets of SDG 16. The potential erosion of the rule of law, reduced access to what is perceived as fair justice (SDG 16.3), and the removal of a key form of participatory decision-making (SDG 16.7) risk weakening the very institutions the reforms aim to strengthen.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article directly addresses SDG 16, which aims to “provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” The core issue discussed is the crisis within the criminal justice system in England and Wales, specifically the “unprecedented delays and backlogs in courts.” The proposed reforms to restrict jury trials are a direct response to the ineffectiveness of the current system, while the ensuing debate focuses on the potential impact on accountability, fairness, and public trust in these legal institutions.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

• This target is central to the article. The existence of a backlog of “more than 78,000 cases” and the fact that suspects “may not have a trial until late 2029 or early 2030” demonstrates a significant barrier to accessing timely justice. The government’s proposal is framed as an attempt to “improve timeliness,” thereby restoring access to justice. However, critics argue that removing juries could compromise the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental component of equal access to justice.

Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

• The article highlights the current ineffectiveness of the Crown Courts, describing the situation as a “crisis” with “record backlogs.” The proposed reforms aim to make the institution more effective by increasing its capacity to hear cases. The debate also touches on accountability and public trust. Critics, such as Kemi Badenoch and Baroness Helena Kennedy, argue that removing juries—a form of public participation—could “undermine public trust” and erode the system’s accountability to the public it serves.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators for Target 16.3

• Number of pending cases in the court system: The article explicitly states that Crown Courts are facing “record backlogs with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed.” This is a direct quantitative indicator of the lack of timely access to justice.
• Projected growth of the case backlog: The article mentions that “officials predict in the document that the caseload will grow to more than 100,000” without intervention. This serves as an indicator of the escalating problem.
• Waiting time for trial: The article provides a clear indicator of delay, noting that “suspects being charged with serious crimes today may not have a trial until late 2029 or early 2030.” This measures the extent to which justice is being delayed.

Indicators for Target 16.6

• Public trust and confidence in the justice system: While not a quantitative figure, this is a significant qualitative indicator implied throughout the article. Critics’ concerns that the plans risk “fairness, undermines public trust, and erodes the very foundation of our justice system” point to this as a key metric for the institution’s accountability and perceived legitimacy. Baroness Helena Kennedy’s statement that public participation is a “vital proponent” of justice further reinforces the importance of public trust as an indicator.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com