UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced on 31 July 2026 that he plans to scrap proposals to cut back on jury trials in England and Wales. This reverses a major change to the justice system that he inherited from the previous government. Speaking at a community centre in Sheffield, Burnham said his experience campaigning for justice after the Hillsborough disaster made him reluctant to restrict juries (The Guardian).

A jury trial means that a group of ordinary people from the public, rather than a judge alone, listens to the evidence in a criminal case and decides whether the accused person is guilty. The previous plans came from Keir Starmer's government and were proposed by David Lammy, who was justice secretary and Deputy Prime Minister at the time. In December 2025, Lammy announced that defendants likely to face a sentence of three years or less would no longer get a jury trial. Only the most serious cases, such as alleged murder, rape, or manslaughter, would keep that right (BBC News).

The restrictions were part of a larger law called the courts and tribunals bill. That bill would also remove defendants' ability to choose a jury trial and limit the right to appeal a decision from a magistrates court (which handles less serious cases) to a crown court (which handles more serious ones). Magistrates would be allowed to hand down longer sentences, up from a maximum of one year to at least 18 months. A new judge-only "swift" court would be set up to hear cases without a jury (The Guardian).

The goal of Lammy's proposals was to cut the number of jury trials in half, from 15,000 per year, and to clear a backlog of nearly 80,000 court cases waiting to be heard. That backlog is the main reason the government wanted these reforms in the first place. It is also what makes Burnham's reversal so significant: by scrapping the trial restrictions, he removes the main tool the previous government had designed to reduce the backlog.

Burnham's own position has a twist. Before he became prime minister, when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester, he was quoted in the King's Speech 2026 background briefing notes as saying that jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000. He estimated that trials without a jury would cut hearing time by at least 20 per cent, calling that a conservative estimate (Gov.uk). Those earlier remarks put Burnham on record supporting the logic behind the reforms he is now rejecting.

The reforms faced strong opposition from lawyers. Thousands of them, including top barristers (specialist court lawyers) and retired judges, called on the government to drop the plan (BBC News). Even so, MPs voted to let the bill continue through Parliament, though some Labour MPs broke ranks to oppose it (BBC News).

That disagreement had political fallout. Labour MP Karl Turner was suspended from the parliamentary Labour party for criticising David Lammy and Keir Starmer over the jury trial plans. Burnham said he has asked chief whip Anneliese Midgley, the MP in charge of party discipline, to speak to Turner about rejoining the party. This is part of a wider pattern of making peace: Diane Abbott and Joani Reid, two Labour MPs who had been suspended under Starmer, were readmitted on 30 July 2026 (The Guardian).

Burnham's mention of Hillsborough is central to his argument. The Hillsborough disaster happened in 1989, when 97 Liverpool football fans died in a crush at Sheffield Wednesday's stadium. The aftermath became a decades-long fight over official misconduct, biased media coverage, and inquests (formal investigations into how people died) that failed the families. Burnham's campaigning for the families helped win new inquests, which concluded that the victims were unlawfully killed. His point is that when ordinary people are involved in justice decisions, it acts as a safeguard against institutions getting things wrong.

The bigger picture here is that Burnham is undoing his predecessor's key justice law while also trying to heal the divisions it caused inside his own party. He is signalling the reversal before the bill has finished making its way through Parliament, which raises practical questions about whether the government will withdraw the bill entirely or change it significantly. The bill includes other changes beyond jury trials, such as giving magistrates more sentencing power and limiting appeal rights, and it is not clear yet whether those parts would survive if the jury-related sections are removed.

The case backlog itself is still unresolved. The figure of nearly 80,000 pending cases has not been disputed by Burnham. By scrapping the trial restrictions, he also gives up the efficiency gains the changes were expected to deliver, including the 20 per cent reduction in hearing time he himself once cited. So far, no alternative plan for clearing the backlog has been put forward.