Government steps back from judge-only trials but must go further on jury trial reforms - Rights of Women

[IwantToRetire]

The Government is stepping back from its proposal to introduce judge-only trials, but significant concerns remain about its plans to still restrict access to jury trials.
Responding to the announcement, Hannah Couchman, Senior Legal Officer (Criminal Law) at Rights of Women, said today:
“This announcement shows that government recognises the dangers of restricting access to jury trials, but it is refusing to address the concerns of the VAWG sector and scrap these proposals altogether.
Confidence in the justice system and access to a fair trial are critical. We know that women, Black people and older people elect for trial at the Crown Court at higher rates than other groups. We also know that trust in the justice system is lowest among minoritised communities.
The restriction on electing trial by a jury further embeds misogynistic and racist attitudes that already exist in our criminal justice system. This does not serve the interests of survivors and will not address court backlogs.”

In March 2026, Rights of Women, together with 30 organisations from across the Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) sector, wrote to the Government calling for it to rethink proposals to restrict access to jury trials. The letter highlighted the lived reality for many women who are both victims of violence and defendants in the criminal justice system, and the need for their experiences of violence, discrimination and inequality to be properly understood when they are facing criminalisation themselves. More broadly, restricting access to jury trials would erode a critical safeguard that protects fairness and justice across the criminal justice system for everyone.

The Government’s decision to step back from its proposal for judge-only trials marks a significant change in its approach. However, substantial restrictions on jury trials remain. The Government is still proposing to restrict a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial in an “either way” case, as well as introduce changes that would allow more cases carrying sentences of up to two years to be dealt with in magistrates’ courts rather than the Crown Court.

Every survivor deserves a criminal justice system that is fair, effective and capable of delivering justice without compromising fundamental safeguards. Tackling the unacceptable court backlog requires measures that address its underlying causes, not restrictions on access to justice.

Read our original joint letter to the Government.
Read our latest letter to the Lord Chancellor

https://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/government-steps-back-from-judge-only-trials-but-must-go-further-on-jury-trial-reforms/

I don't see how this issue has anything to do with the sex of either the victims or the defendants. Men and women will be affected equally by it. What am I missing?

Only someone who thinks man and women are treated equally would say this.

Secondly you could read the press release.

I didn't say I thought men and woman are treated equally, I said I thought men and women would be affected equally by the restriction of jury trials.

I take that back though, women would be much better served as rape victims to have their cases decided by judges, and possibly magistrates, who had training in dealing with rape cases, than with a jury of their peers, imo.

Secondly you could read the press release.

The bit where it says jury trials should be kept because more women elect for them than men?

That doesn't mean they get better justice from a jury than a magistrates court. The impact of withdrawal of that right will affect men's and women's cases equally.

Or possibly affect male defendants more. Because in spite of the letter denying it, defence lawyers will tell you that a man who knows he is definitely guilty will often elect for a jury trial because of the greater chance of a jury letting him off than magistrate's bench.

There isn't anything in the press release that justifies this move being called misogynistic and patriarchal.

I've read both the letters now and from the point of view of a decade of serving as a magistrate and of having previously sat on three jury trials, the view of juries delivering more reliable justice is romanticised and entirely mistaken.

As a victim, if there was a choice, I would always choose to go before a bench of 3.

I don't agree at all with single district judges hearing cases, and if anything the campaign should be against that. I don't agree with reducing access to jury trials, it's low enough already. As I said, I do think rape victims should have the option of a rape case trained bench of 3 and that they would get higher conviction rates from those courts.

I get that feminist organisations exist to put a feminist slant on things. I don't agree with them on this one on the evidence they have provided.