Hold on to your gavels, courtroom drama is about to get a major rewrite! Justice Secretary David Lammy just dropped a bombshell that's got legal eagles squawking.

Thousands of cases involving burglaries, assaults, petty fraud, and drug dealing are about to be rerouted—straight out of jury trials and into "Swift Courts" or beefed-up magistrates' courts, according to sources.

What does this mean? Defendants in "either-way" cases—those mid-level crimes that could swing either way between a magistrates' or Crown Court—are about to lose their shot at a jury trial.

The Tories are already screaming foul, calling it a "political choice" and suggesting ministers should just cough up more cash to clear the existing backlog. Are they wrong?

Lammy, however, is sticking to his guns. He says cases likely to result in sentences of three years or less will be decided by a single judge. This plan, he insists, comes straight from Sir Brian Leveson’s review which previously warned the courts were “broken."

Originally, there was talk of a five-year cutoff, but after a ferocious backlash, the government's gone back to Leveson’s original blueprint.

So, what kind of crimes are still worthy of a full jury? According to Lammy, you’ll still get your day before a dozen peers for the biggies: rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery, and arson with intent to kill.

The new "Swift Courts," which will operate within the Crown Court, promise to deliver verdicts a whopping 20 percent faster than those pesky jury trials. Is faster justice better justice?

Here's the breakdown: forget choosing a jury. Now, the courts decide the venue, not the accused. Jury trials will be reserved for only the most serious crimes, justice officials noted.

Magistrates are getting a power-up, too. They can now sentence offenders to 18 months, potentially stretching to two years, further easing the pressure on the Crown Court.

Appeals from magistrates will also be tightened, restricted to legal points only, putting an end to offenders dragging cases on for years in the hope of a better outcome.

Lammy is adamant that these changes "protect jury trials where they matter most" by freeing up the system to deal with the worst of the worst more efficiently.

According to him, magistrates already handle about 90 percent of criminal cases, and only a tiny fraction—3 percent—ever make it to a jury. So why all the fuss?

The Justice Secretary painted a grim picture of victims "betrayed" by the system, with trials delayed for years, leaving survivors "jobless, fearful, and disillusioned."

To soften the blow, he's announced a £550 million package to support victims, plus extra funds for barristers and solicitors to keep trials from grinding to a halt.

But will it work? Critics aren't convinced. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick slammed the overhaul as purely political.

Jenrick pointed out that dozens of Crown Courtrooms are sitting empty not because of "juries" but because Lammy is allegedly refusing to fund enough sitting days to get trials moving.

“The truth is, scrapping juries is a choice," Jenrick stated, suggesting the government is prioritizing other spending over funding the courts.

The core question remains: will these changes actually fix the mess, or simply shuffle it around? Will "Swift Courts" deliver true justice, or just speed up the process at the expense of fairness?

Only time will tell if this courtroom shake-up is a stroke of genius or a major misstep. One thing's for sure: the legal world will be watching closely.

Go to Home page.