Jury Trials to be Scrapped to Clear Court Backlogs: Is This Fair to the Defendant?

 Excruciating waits for suspects and defendants is evident in almost all criminal cases that are being investigated or prosecuted at the moment. The police, court system and prison system is over ran and understaffed and it is having a truly devastating affect on the administration of justice for all involved; the defendant, complainant, and witnesses. The announcement of a once-in-a-generation review of the criminal courts, made today by the Lord Chancellor, has been met with cautious optimism

At this present time figures show that cases waiting to be dealt with by Crown Courts in England & Wales stood at 
73,105 as of the end of September 2024 - a new record high.

A review, conducted by former High Court Judge Sir Brian Leveson, of the backlogs and the impact it is having on the criminal justice process has led to consideration being given to the introduction of 'intermediate courts'. Intermediate Courts  which will see trials in the Crown Court take place without a jury, with the aim being that this process will help speed up clearing the backlog of cases, and will see the courts back up and running to a sufficient and manageable standard.  The proposal seems to suggest that a case which falls subject to this mode of trial would be heard by a Crown Court judge and two lay Magistrates. Additionally, there will be a focus on empowering magistrates to handle more serious cases, potentially freeing up Crown Court resources.

 

The cases which are likely to fall subject to the 'intermediate courts' are those that are deemed too serious for the Magistrates Court but deemed not serious enough for a Crown Court jury trial. This could include; low level indecent image cases, sexual assaults, domestic violence and sexual communication offences


However, from a defence lawyers view, the implementation of such a process could lead to unfairness and could be disadvantageous to the accused, which could lead to more appeal applications being lodged, causing further backlogs for the Court of Appeal


How Will Intermediate Courts Affect a Defendant?


The introduction of Crown Court hearings without a jury is for many going to be a frightening thought, and will take away the choice of being tried by a jury that defendants charged with either-way offences have.


Where a suspect is charged with an offence it will fall into one of three categories: 


Summary Only 


A summary only offence is a criminal offence that can be heard only by the Magistrates Court and is deemed a less serious offence. 


Indictable Only


Indictable only offences can be heard only in the Crown Court, these offences are of the most serious and include Rape, murder, and assault by penetration


and; 


Either Way 


An either-way offence can be heard by the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court. Where a Magistrates Court accepts an either-way offence the defendant then has the opportunity to elect the Crown Court should they wish to do so. The main reason a defendant would be advised to elect the Crown Court is to have a trial by jury, to be tried by 12 ordinary members of the public and this is a very attractive mode of trial for many. 


A trial in the Crown Court provides the judge and the jury with two different functions, the judge oversees the law and the procedure, whereby the jury is the finder of the facts, their role is to hear the evidence and decide what they believe. If a trial is to be put before a judge and magistrates, are the Magistrates to take over the role of the jury, and if so, is this going to lead to a fair trial. 


How Would Changes Work? 


The review and proposals are in their very early stages and there will be no development of them until April 2025 at least. However, for the new system to be implemented and to work efficiently ensuring fairness to the accused, there are going to have to be changes throughout the whole system; including the reclassification of offences and clear guidance as to the function and powers of each role within the judiciary and also whether the appeal process would remain the same. 


Whilst we would agree it is in the interests of those who are involved in the criminal justice system for reform, it does have the potential to cause more problems that it solves.


We Can Help With

By Jess Wilson June 13, 2025
Have you been charged with indecent image possession? Do you want to know how many cases get dropped? Read our latest article to learn more.
By Jess Wilson June 11, 2025
Understanding the difference between “consent” and “reasonable belief” can be key if you are being investigated or prosecuted for a sexual offence, where these two issues can arise. These are not just technical legal terms; they are real-world concepts that can affect the outcome of serious sexual abuse cases. At Eventum Legal, our aim is to help people grasp these important ideas so that they know where they stand, whether they’re seeking justice, facing an accusation, or just wanting to be informed. Consent and the Law: What Does It Mean? When it comes to sexual activity, the law makes it very clear that “consent” isn’t just about saying yes or no. Consent means agreeing by choice, having the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and being able to change your mind at any time, even if the sexual activity has begun. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that a person consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. In practical terms, this means no one should be pressured, forced, or tricked into sex. If someone is too drunk, too scared, or otherwise unable to decide, they cannot legally give consent. This applies also to issues with mental capacity where someone may not have the understanding or ability to give informed consent. When establishing whether consent or reasonable belief applies, the courts examine everything that happened, how the people involved acted, what was said, their relationship, and whether any threats were made. It’s not about just hearing a yes or no, but about whether the agreement was truly given, freely and knowingly, at the time. Reasonable Belief: The Other Side of the Coin While “consent” focuses on the person on the receiving end of sexual activity, “reasonable belief” is about the perspective of the person accused of the crime. UK law says it’s not enough for someone to claim they thought the other person was consenting. The belief that consent existed must be reasonable; it must meet the standard of what a reasonable person would think in those circumstances. This comes down to two questions: did the accused genuinely believe the other person was consenting, and would a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew and considering everything that happened, have reached the same conclusion? It’s not a defence to say, “I just thought it was okay,” if evidence, actions, or common sense didn’t back that belief up. Courts look at whether the accused checked for consent, paid attention to what was happening, and took steps to make sure everything was agreed upon. How the Law Applies These Concepts The distinction between consent and reasonable belief matters because everyone is responsible for ensuring that consent is present, not just assuming or hoping it is. The prosecution in a sexual offence case has to prove that there was no consent or that the accused did not have a reasonable belief that consent existed. To judge this, courts examine the context: Were both people sober and able to make decisions? Was there clear, positive agreement? Did one person ignore signs of hesitation or discomfort? In cases where someone is very intoxicated or unable to communicate, the law presumes that there is no consent, and it is challenging for anyone to claim a reasonable belief otherwise. However, where alcohol is in question the issue can become complex as we all have difference alcohol tolerances, what may be too drunk to one person, could be different to the other. Therefore, working to establish the intoxication and affect is crucial for lawyers in some cases. In cases where it can be proven that that someone was too drunk to speak or move, and the accused says they thought there was consent just because the person didn’t say “no,” the court is unlikely to accept that as reasonable. The law expects people to check in with their partner, look for positive signs, and stop if there’s any doubt. Clearing Up Common Myths Many misunderstandings exist about how consent and reasonable belief work in real life. One myth is that if someone doesn’t say “no,” they must have agreed. The absence of a “no” is not the same as a “yes.” Another myth is that if two people are in a relationship or have had sex before, consent is always assumed. Every sexual act requires consent, every time. Some people also believe that as long as they honestly thought there was consent, that’s enough. But the law sets a higher bar: the belief has to be reasonable, meaning it must be backed up by what happened and what a reasonable person would think. In our digital age, misunderstandings can easily happen through text or online communication. Courts are aware of this and look at all available evidence, including messages and social media, to determine what happened. Other avenues of evidence exploration can include CCTV footage and witnesses. Why These Legal Standards Matter The way UK law approaches consent and reasonable belief has changed over time. In the past, people could argue they had an “honest” belief in consent, even if it wasn’t reasonable. That changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which now requires honesty and reasonableness. This protects people from harm and ensures that the law takes the experiences and choices of everyone involved seriously. These rules are designed to keep people safe and ensure everyone’s rights are respected. The law encourages open communication, respect, and responsibility. It expects everyone to look for clear signs of agreement and to stop if there is any doubt or hesitation. What To Do If You’re Involved In A Sexual Offence Case Suppose you’re facing a situation involving consent or reasonable belief and you as the accused want to prove that either of these legal requirements existed, then you must seek legal advice and engage with specialist lawyers who can navigate the complexities of the key legal issues in sexual offence cases. These cases can be stressful and complex, and every detail matters: what was said, what was done, and what steps were taken to ensure everyone agreed. At Eventum Legal, we specialise in helping people understand their rights and responsibilities. We listen, explain your options in straightforward language, and support you throughout the process, always with respect and confidentiality.  Whether you’re seeking justice, defending your reputation, or simply want to know your rights, we’re here to help. Frequently Asked Questions What is the difference between consent and reasonable belief? Consent is when a person freely agrees to a sexual act. Reasonable belief is whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that consent was given, based on all the facts. Can someone be convicted if they misunderstood consent? Yes, if their belief in consent wasn’t reasonable. The court looks at the whole situation, not just what the accused thought. How can I protect myself or prove consent? Open communication and ensuring everyone is comfortable and willing are the safest approaches. If you’re worried about misunderstandings, keep records of conversations. Where can I get help or advice? Contact Eventum Legal for confidential, expert support tailored to your needs.
By Sylvie Smith June 5, 2025
Have you been accused of breaching your SHPO, maybe by accident or knowingly? Speak to our specialist team.
More Posts