Courts and Tribunals Bill passes House of Commons Second Reading

'Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters' - Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP

Tuesday 10 March 2026 - House of Commons. The government's Courts and Tribunals Bill passed second reading in the House of Commons. The voting was 304 to 203.  Ten Labour MPs voted against the Bill.

The debate may be read at Hansard 10 March.

This previous post looked at the Bill in greater detail.

The Bill will now proceed to Committee Stage and opponents of the Bill (including some who chose to abstain at second reading) hope to secure amendments. 

In summary, the Bill 

1) Retains trial by jury but only for the most serious offences  - BUT - some complex or lengthy cases would be triable by judge alone provided that certain conditions are met 

2) For less serious offences, defendants will not have the right to choose trial in the Crown Court. Cases will be heard without a jury if the sentence on conviction is likely to be three years or less

3) The workload of Magistrates' Courts will increase because those courts will have their sentencing powers increased - (Note: this could be up to 2 years imprisonment but the exact figure remains to be set).

4) There will no longer be an automatic right of appeal following conviction by the Magistrates' Courts. An appeal will have to be applied for and whether it takes place will be decided by a judge.

5) No changes to make legal aid more generous have been put forward - on this please see my previous post. (Some MPs pointed this out during the second reading debate - e.g. Jess Brown-Fuller MP - Lib. Dems, Chichester).

The House of Commons has now approved the general principle of the Bill - see Erskine May.

This was a sad day for justice in England and Wales. A day when elected members of Parliament set about dismantling an institution which enjoys the confidence of the majority of the population. 

A large backlog of Crown Court cases is claimed to be the reason for the reforms but I believe that this is just a convenient excuse. On a practical level, it is not clear that the proposals will be effective in solving the delay problem since it was not caused by the need for juries in the first place. The backlog could be reduced by ensuring that the court system operates at 100% capacity.

The true reason for the reforms lies in political ideology. The government plainly prefers a system in which State officials - (and judges are such officials) - decide on guilt in all but the most serious of cases. It is a fact of political life that the executive continually seeks greater power at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. 

11 March 2026