Courts and Tribunals Bill — Written evidence submitted by Callum Brunton (CTB41)
Parliament bill publication: Written evidence. Commons.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (28th April 2026)
Primary navigation
Home
Parliamentary business
MPs, Lords & offices
About Parliament
Get involved
Visiting
Education
House of Commons
House of Lords
What's on
Bills & legislation
Committees
Publications & records
Parliament TV
News
Topics
You are hereParliament home page
>
Parliamentary business
>
Publications and Records
>
Hansard
>
Commons Debates
>
Public Bill Committee Debates
>
Public Bill Committee
Session 2021-22
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Written evidence submitted by Callum Brunton (CTB41)
I am currently a law student studying a GDL, and believe that elements of this bill (specifically Clause 1 and Clause 3) are gravely flawed.
The proposals set out in the Courts and Tribunals Bill have prompted significant concern to me, and many others, particularly in relation to the restriction of the right to trial by jury and the removal of a defendant’s ability to elect for Crown Court trial.
1. Removal of the Right to Elect Crown Court Trial (Clause 1)
The right of a defendant to elect trial in the Crown Court should be preserved. The current allocation criteria used by Magistrates’ Courts are narrowly focused, primarily on the anticipated length of sentence, and do not allow for consideration of broader factors such as the wider personal or professional consequences of a conviction. The right to elect therefore provides essential procedural flexibility.
Furthermore, the Crown Court and Magistrates’ Court differ materially in their procedures. The Crown Court offers additional safeguards, including the ability to dismiss charges at a pre-trial stage where evidence is insufficient or legally flawed, as well as more robust disclosure obligations. The removal of the right to elect would limit access to these protections.
2. Restrictions on the Right to Trial by Jury (Clause 3)
Even more serious are my concerns that limiting jury trials will not meaningfully address the Crown Court backlog. Even senior judicial figures, including Sir Brian Leveson, have indicated that juries are not the primary cause of delays. Estimates suggest that the proposed measures would reduce Crown Court sitting days by only a small margin, with minimal impact on waiting times for serious cases. The government is being dishonest in it’s reasoning for this legislation.
There are also assumptions underpinning the Government’s Impact Assessment, which may overstate the anticipated efficiencies. Independent analysis indicates that any improvement in case processing speed would likely be marginal.
Additionally, the measures are not expected to take effect for several years and therefore do not address the immediate pressures facing the justice system.
3. Mischaracterisation of Affected Offences
The categorisation of certain offences as "minor" should also be challenged. Offences carrying potential sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment can have profound, life-altering consequences for defendants. The proposed threshold may also produce inconsistent outcomes, whereby defendants with prior convictions are more likely to qualify for jury trial than first-time offenders facing similar charges.
4. The Role of Juries as a Safeguard Against Prejudice
Juries are widely regarded as an important safeguard against bias within the criminal justice system. Their collective decision-making process reduces the risk of individual prejudice influencing outcomes. Research, including that led by David Lammy himself in 2017, has highlighted the role of juries in promoting fairness, particularly for defendants from diverse backgrounds.
There also may be issues regarding the relative lack of diversity within the judiciary, reinforcing the importance of jury participation as a representative element within the system.
"In the final decision, power is also never concentrated in the hands of one individual. If consensus cannot be reached, then a majority verdict can be delivered. Those holding an outlying point of view can be outvoted."
David Lammy - An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System
"A fundamental source of mistrust in the CJS among BAME communities is the lack of diversity among those who wield power within it. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our courts, where there is a gulf between the backgrounds of defendants and judges."
David Lammy - An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System
5. Public Confidence in Jury Trials
Public confidence in jury verdicts remains high. Studies and polling consistently demonstrate strong support for trial by jury, which is widely viewed as a fundamental democratic safeguard. Academic analysis has likewise emphasised the respect afforded to jury decisions within the legal system.
6. Protection for the Judiciary
The use of juries also serves to protect judges from undue criticism. By entrusting fact-finding to a group, the system avoids concentrating decision-making power in a single individual and reduces the risk of perceived bias or "judge shopping."
7. Historical Significance of Trial by Jury
The right to trial by jury has deep constitutional roots, dating back to Magna Carta. The principle that individuals should be judged by their peers is closely associated with its enduring legacy, representing a cornerstone of justice and liberty that has been upheld for over eight centuries.
April 2026
Prepared 28th April 2026
Footer links
A-Z index
Glossary
Contact us
Freedom of Information
Jobs
Using this website
Copyright
Privacy notice
Cookie policy
Cookie Manager