An independent review chaired by Sir Brian Leveson is set to recommend that ministers introduce judge-only trials as an option for defendants, following the model already in place in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The proposal is intended to accelerate proceedings and reduce the backlog of over 75,000 Crown Court cases, which has led to some complainants waiting as long as five years for justice.

Speaking at a conference on modernising justice, Sir Brian said: “I can see the advantage in lots of cases. You will get a reasoned judgment [from a judge]. In front of a jury, you don’t get a judgment at all, you get guilty or not guilty. The case will be undeniably speedier because the judge doesn’t have to explain to the jury all the basic premises of the criminal law.”

Sir Brian is also expected to recommend that juries should not be used in cases lasting longer than 12 months, describing such trials as unfair to jurors due to the impact on their personal and professional lives. In such cases, a judge would hear the trial alone.

Further measures under consideration include curtailing the right to jury trial for a range of lower-level offences, such as assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving, and possession of a class B drug such as cannabis. These could be transferred to an intermediate court consisting of a judge and two magistrates, or tried in magistrates’ courts with extended sentencing powers of up to two years’ imprisonment, double the current limit.

The review was commissioned by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has described the situation in the courts as requiring “once-in-a-generation reform” to restore timely access to justice. Ministry of Justice projections have warned that, without intervention, the backlog could grow to 100,000.

Sir Brian warned that delays were already undermining justice, with some defendants exploiting lengthy waits – stretching in some cases into 2029 – in the hope that victims or witnesses would disengage and prosecutions collapse. Sir Brian said there was a “real risk that the system will collapse”.

While the proposed changes would give defendants the option to choose a judge-only trial, Sir Brian said the government would need to determine which types of cases would qualify. He stressed that judges should retain the discretion to refuse such a request where appropriate.

“There are some cases, which I would not consider appropriate for a judge to try alone, and I would give the judge a discretion,” he said. “So a defendant may say, ‘I would like to be tried by a judge alone’, and the judge would be perfectly entitled to say, ‘I think not’.”

Sir Brian said such discretion might be relevant in cases likely to attract strong public feeling, such as those involving sexual or sadistic violence. “I can see defendants, perhaps charged with cases that attract public opprobrium being concerned about a jury coming in from their daily lives to face that trial,” he said. “Equally, I can see if it’s that much public opprobrium, why a judge may say, ‘I’m not sure about that’. So there is a balance to be done, but judges make judicial decisions all the time.”