These reforms include reducing jury trials for less serious offenses, such as assault of emergency workers, stalking, and possession of indecent images of children, with judges deciding whether cases proceed with or without a jury.

While the reforms are supported by some legal bodies and victims’ advocates for speeding up justice, critics warn they could undermine fairness, diminish societal representation, and erode constitutional rights, especially regarding jury trials.

Sir Brian Leveson, who led the review, stressed that decades of underfunding have weakened the system, and these radical reforms are necessary to prevent systemic collapse and modernize justice delivery.

Concerns have been raised about increased judicial discretion leading to biases, and critics argue that removing juries could diminish public participation and trust in the justice process.

The government plans to review and respond to these recommendations before legislating in the autumn, with promises of increased court funding and a focus on reducing delays.

Sir Brian Leveson emphasized that these are fundamental changes, not minor tweaks, necessary to prevent the collapse of the justice system, and that traditional solutions like funding increases alone are insufficient.

He also highlighted that any trial without a jury would require judge approval and would not be suitable for all cases, especially those attracting significant public interest.

Efforts to mitigate concerns about racial bias include including magistrates from diverse communities, and Leveson denied witnessing racial bias during his career.

The UK government, led by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, is proposing significant reforms to the criminal justice system aimed at tackling record-high court backlogs, which have exceeded 75,000 cases and threaten to extend into 2029.

A new Crown Court Bench Division is proposed, where cases with potential prison sentences of three years or less would be handled by one judge and two magistrates, aiming to increase court efficiency and reduce backlog.

The reforms also suggest expanding magistrates' roles, including handling more serious offenses, but the Magistrates’ Association emphasizes the need for a significant increase in magistrates—over 20,000—due to rising demands.

The proposal has received mixed reactions; some legal professionals and officials warn that removing jury trials could compromise fairness, while others argue that such reforms are essential for the system’s survival.

The reforms are seen as essential to address the current ineffective courts, with projections indicating they could save thousands of court days annually and require substantial investment—around £1 billion—over the next few years.