Justice Secretary David Lammy has pleaded with MPs to support his plans to curb access to jury trials as Labour rebels indicated they could not support the reforms.
Mr Lammy told MPs the choice was “stark” as he said there was an urgent need to keep the criminal justice system running amid rising court backlogs.
The Government wants to scale back the right for a defendant to stand trial in front of a jury in an effort to speed up the system, including introducing judge-only trials for some offences.
But Labour MPs raised concerns about the capacity of magistrates’ courts to take on cases and whether the wider reforms were workable.
I remain firmly opposed to any erosion of trial by jury. I will abstain at 2nd Reading and work to amend the Bill to remove its worst parts. Today isn’t the moment to defeat the Government, but as the Bill progresses I’m confident we can win the argument. Watch my speech below. pic.twitter.com/Lmv9wTlc7s
— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) March 10, 2026
Under the Courts and Tribunals Bill, cases with a likely sentence of three years or less will only be heard by a single crown court judge, without a jury.
Magistrates’ powers will be increased so they can hand down sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, up from 12 months currently, so they will be able to deal with more cases.
MPs will vote on the proposals on Tuesday.
Labour MPs have already indicated they will not be able to support the Government.
Kingston-upon-Hull East MP Karl Turner, a longstanding critic, said the Bill was “unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary”.
Mr Turner, a former barrister, said he would abstain after speaking to Mr Lammy on Monday. He said he believed parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill would lead to it being changed.
He said: “I am more confident now than ever I was that the worst parts of this Bill will be defeated at amendment stage.”
He added: “Let this have a second reading today, and let us make progress to get rid of the bits of this Bill which are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.”
Meanwhile, Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) said she did not believe magistrates’ courts had the capacity to take on the caseload from crown courts.
Ms Creasy said: “The concern that the Institute for Government report highlights is that magistrates’ courts will struggle to absorb such a large increase in demand, so we may not see the faster justice that (Mr Lammy) is promising under these proposals.
“Will he recognise that for those of us who cannot support this legislation as it stands, it is that concern to look at the data, and look at whether juries are a red herring when it comes to the investment that we so sorely need because of the damage done by the previous government.”
Mr Lammy said the Government had uncapped sitting days for magistrates and that he wanted to increase the number of magistrates and said he hoped she could support the Bill at a later stage.
Labour MP Naz Shah (Bradford West) had earlier pressed Mr Lammy to “review robustly the impact of this Bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds”, and her party colleague, Imran Hussain (Bradford East), raised concerns over the “disproportionate impact” on black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities.
The Justice Secretary later told MPs that the proposals were “progressive”.
Putting forward his plans in the Commons, Mr Lammy said if no action was taken, the backlog could reach 200,000 cases in a decade.
His justice minister, Sarah Sackman, has previously said the Government would carry out the reforms regardless of any backlog, amid calls for a “sunset clause” once the backlog had fallen.
Speaking at second reading of the Bill, Mr Lammy said: “The choice before the House is stark. We cannot continue with this rising backlog.”
“Let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country,” he said.
“This Bill is not just about juries, this is a whole package and that’s why just a few weeks ago I set out that investment was key, and this is £2.78 billion worth of investment and as Sir Brian (Leveson) told us in part two of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system is also fundamental.
“Victims are currently worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free. Free to roam the streets, free to commit more crimes, free to create more victims.
“To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, investment is essential, modernisation is essential, and reform.”
The proposed changes follow recommendations from a review by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Brian Leveson published last year.
But a letter organised by the Bar Council and signed by hundreds of judges, barristers and lawyers said the plans were “based on little evidence”.
More than 300 KCs and 22 retired judges are among the 3,236 legal professionals who have signed our letter calling on the Prime Minister to stop the government's jury trial proposal ahead of a parliamentary debate on new legislation to restrict jury trials today.
— The Bar Council (@thebarcouncil) March 10, 2026
Our letter… pic.twitter.com/LHLgeg24bM
In their letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, thousands of legal professionals, including former director of public prosecutions Sir David Calvert-Smith, said the proposals are based on “little evidence”.
They added: “We do not support the erosion of a deeply entrenched constitutional principle for negligible gain and with substantial risks.”
Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy claimed the Government is “rushing” proposed changes to jury trial through Parliament “at breakneck speed”.
Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fuller argued that the Government is “wasting severely limited political capital” on reducing the number of jury trials, which she argued “won’t shift the backlog” on clearing the Court Crown backlog.
Labour MP Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) wrote on X that he was “not convinced by the minister and will vote against”.
