Insights from Switalskis Criminal Law Solicitor, Sarah Myatt

The government has now confirmed plans, announced by Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, to restrict the right to trial by jury for criminal offences that are considered likely to attract a sentence of fewer than three years. The policy, first leaked last week, has generated significant debate across the legal profession, with concerns focusing on its impact on fairness, transparency, and the already-strained criminal justice system.

Criminal law solicitor Sarah Myatt, who recently helped overturn one of the UK’s longest-running miscarriages of justice, has twice appeared on BBC Radio recently to discuss the reforms. She offered a clear, frontline perspective on why the proposals risk doing more harm than good, and why they fail to address the real causes of court backlogs.

“A fundamental part of our justice system”

Speaking on BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester, Sarah made clear that jury trials are not an administrative inconvenience but are in fact a pillar of British justice.

“In my opinion, [these reforms] remove a fundamental part of our justice system.”

The right to be tried by a jury of twelve independent people is, as Sarah noted, an historic and deeply-rooted safeguard: “That right to a jury trial has been a fundamental right in this country for many, many years… so old you can’t actually find the roots of it.”

While the government argues the change will speed up the system, Sarah warned that public trust depends on justice being seen to be done by a broad, representative cross-section of society, something a jury uniquely provides.

Will the backlogs be fixed by removing juries?

The government has described the reforms as necessary to address long delays. Some trials are now being listed as far away as 2029 and even 2030. But Sarah was clear - “There needs to be a solution. In my opinion, this is not it.”

She outlined that removing juries from some cases will not remove the need for the same infrastructure a trial requires- prosecutors, defence lawyers, court staff, judges, and resources. It will simply shift the pressure.

“If you introduce a new tier of court system, that will still require the resources that are depleted… We need to be investing in those resources to increase court sitting days and availability.”

The conversation discussed that while jury trials would be reduced, the volume of cases would not, as the cases still have to be heard somewhere, so ultimately “the backlog is then pushed more towards the Magistrates’ Court.”

Which, as Sarah highlighted, with an 18-month backlog for hearings in some areas, the magistrates’ courts are already struggling – so will they be able to cope?

A further problem lies in who will be asked to fill the gap. Magistrates are unpaid volunteers, reimbursed only for expenses. Asking them to take on more serious cases raises issues of fairness and representation.

Sarah echoed concerns raised on the BBC by listeners who suggested that “you’re only going to have a certain kind of person who could afford to be a magistrate… That isn’t representative of all society.” This contrasts to having what the public want to see. Twelve individuals who are independent, from all different backgrounds of society, able to decide the facts fairly.

What counts as a ‘likely’ three-year sentence?

One of the most concerning ambiguities in the announcement is how the threshold will actually be applied. The reforms refer not to offences with a maximum of three years’ imprisonment, but to those with a likely sentence of less than three years.

This creates uncertainty and inconsistency, as Sarah explained:

“Are we looking at crimes that have a higher maximum than three years, but we look at the case and decide whether that particular crime in those circumstances is likely to get under three years?”

That could include offences such as actual bodily harm (ABH), which carries a maximum of five years. So, the unanswered questions remain – who will be making these decisions? The court? How’s that going to look?

Until this is clarified, the new system risks confusion, disputes, and further delays - the very problems the reform is supposed to solve.

The real issue: chronic underfunding

Across both interviews, Sarah returned consistently to the core problem of concern: “The criminal justice system is significantly underfunded.”

Defence solicitors, prosecutors, and barristers are leaving the field in large numbers due to poor remuneration and working conditions. Unfortunately, they are deciding to avoid this area of law, or end up coming out of it.

Without investment in people, courts, and infrastructure, no structural changes, jury or otherwise, can meaningfully resolve the backlog. Sarah argues, “If you don’t have the infrastructure, you can’t build upon it.”

Reform must start with investment, not erosion of rights

David Lammy’s announcement trims the proposals from a five-year threshold to three years, but as Sarah pointed out, this “watering down” does not address the underlying concerns. For those working within the criminal justice system , these reforms just highlight further failures.

Switalskis stands with practitioners across the sector urging the government to invest in resources, staff, and court capacity rather than restricting a centuries-old protection.

As Sarah put it plainly:

“I just don’t think this is going to solve the problems that are there.”

The justice system needs reform - but reforms that strengthen it, not ones that risk weakening the public’s trust in its fairness.