Britain's left-wing government moved a step closer Thursday to eliminating jury trials for many criminal cases after members of Parliament voted to advance the controversial proposal to the next stage of the legislative process.
The measure, introduced by Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy, would end the right to trial by jury for defendants facing sentences of three years or less, Breitbart reported.
In those cases, a single judge would determine the verdict.
Supporters say the plan is needed to address the mounting backlog in Britain's courts, while critics say it would overturn centuries of legal tradition and weaken a core safeguard of the justice system.
Lammy told lawmakers the changes are necessary to deal with the growing number of cases awaiting trial.
"To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, investment is essential, modernisation is essential, and reform," he said, according to the BBC.
Lammy warned that the current backlog of about 80,000 cases could grow dramatically if reforms are not implemented.
"If we do nothing, the backlog will rise to upwards of 200,000 by 2035," Lammy said.
Most members of the governing Labour Party backed the proposal, allowing it to pass its latest reading by a vote of 304 to 203.
However, divisions within Labour were evident. Ten Labour MPs voted against the measure, while about 90 others did not record a vote.
If those abstentions eventually coalesce into organized opposition, the rebellion could threaten the legislation's prospects and deliver a setback to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's control over his party's parliamentary ranks.
Among the Labour lawmakers who opposed the measure was Warrington North MP Charlotte Nichols, who disclosed during the debate that she had been a victim of rape and criticized the government for invoking sexual assault cases to push the reform.
Nichols said the government had "weaponized rape" in its effort to persuade lawmakers to support ending jury trials for many cases.
Outside Parliament, the proposal has also drawn strong opposition from the legal community.
More than 3,200 lawyers signed a letter urging the government to abandon the plan, saying the claim that eliminating jury trials would significantly reduce the court backlog lacks supporting evidence.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, head of the Bar Council, which represents more than 18,000 barristers, said the legal profession broadly opposes the proposal.
"This letter and its more than 3,000 signatories demonstrate the unequivocal principled and practical opposition to the restriction of jury trials from not only the Bar, but the legal profession as a whole," Brimelow said.
The debate has also prompted reflection in the United States about the role of jury trials in democratic systems.
Writing in an opinion piece for The Hill, Mark Martin, a former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court and founding dean of the Kenneth F. Kahn School of Law at High Point University, warned that weakening jury trials risks eroding a central safeguard of liberty.
"Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty," John Adams said in 1774, Martin noted, adding that the founders broadly shared that sentiment.
Martin said Britain's move to curtail jury trials should raise concerns as the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
"The jury trial is not simply a procedural election; it is a cornerstone of democratic governance and one of the most important protections against lawfare and the unchecked exercise of arbitrary and capricious government power," Martin wrote.
He said juries place ordinary citizens at the center of the justice system, allowing the law to be administered not only by government officials but with the participation of the public.
"This sharing of power between the government and the governed creates accountability, ensures transparency, and promotes public trust," Martin wrote, warning that these values cannot be fully replicated when decisions are concentrated solely in the hands of judges or government authorities.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.