Ministry of Justice written question – answered at on 8 December 2025.
Andrew Slaughter
Chair, Justice Committee, Chair, Justice Committee
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, on the basis of what evidence was the estimate of a 20 per cent time saving for judge only trials made, including the following evidence referred to in the Leveson report (i) the quantitative analyses, (ii) the quantitative estimate of impact from the workshop with HMCTS operational staff and (iii) a summary of judicial expectations of time saving; and what is the confidence interval for the 20 per cent estimate.
Sarah Sackman
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice
Hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, judges explaining legal concepts to jurors, and jury deliberation. There is no denying that these add to the time it takes to hear a case.
The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court.
In Part I of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, Sir Brian Leveson, one of the foremost judges of his generation, and his Expert Advisers have estimated a new Crown Court bench Division would speed up cases by at least 20%. Sir Brian himself has indicated that he believes this was a conservative estimate and could be significantly more in practice.
Further details of the work undertaken to arrive at this assumption can be found below:
Quantitative analyses explored potential proxies for jury trial savings by drawing comparisons within the current system. Whilst there is no directly comparable proxy for judge only trials within our own systems, this provided a framework for elicitation workshops and judicial engagement.
A structured elicitation workshop with expert operational staff from HMCTS. The quantitative analysis was shared with participants, and the workshop generated a suggested estimated range of 10-30% for lower to upper end plausible time savings, with 20% given as a median value.
Engagement session with judges to understand their personal expectations of potential time-savings, intended to provide an anecdotal indication of where and how the judiciary thought time savings may or may not become apparent in a CCBD. Their views were in keeping with wider estimates.
The 20% assumption is also broadly in line with international evidence from New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research who compared quantitative data from judge only and jury trials. Whilst time savings varied by offence type, for all offences it found a 16% reduction in trial length for judge only trials, and a 29% time saving for complex and prejudicial offences.
A full Impact Assessment of the policy measures announced will be published alongside legislation as is usual.
We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.
Yes2 people think so
No0 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.
Secretary of State was originally the title given to the two officials who conducted the Royal Correspondence under Elizabeth I. Now it is the title held by some of the more important Government Ministers, for example the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
