Sir Brian Leveson, who conducted the independent review of the courts system that guided the government’s decision to reduce on jury trials, has suggested there is no alternative.

Speaking to Sky’s Politics Hub programme, the retired judge argued that by restricting jury trials, Justice Secretary David Lammy is “aiming to try to solve the systemic problems” in courts.

He told Sky presenter Ali Fortescue: “I am a great believer in trial by jury, but trials with a jury take very much longer than trials conducted otherwise than with 12 people who are utterly unused to criminal procedure and criminal evidence.

“So my concern is that we need to get through cases quicker.”

He said that it was likely a “20% time saving would result” from the move, although he thinks that “a great deal more” would be saved.

Asked about the criticism today of the decision, Sir Brian said: “I’m gaining no pleasure from it, but what I say to all of them is ‘If not this, then what?’ How do we reduce the backlog so the victims and witnesses get their day in court within a reasonable time?”

He argued that “we should use our resources proportionately to the gravity of the offending”, and “there are some cases which, to my mind, do not merit or require a trial by jury”.

Sir Brian said that some jurors he had spoken to said it was “worthwhile”. But he added: “They’ve given up two weeks of their life, sometimes without any pay except the small remuneration that they receive from the state doing jury service, and they’ve been trying cases which shouldn’t merit their attention”.

Asked if he would want a trial by jury if he had been wrongly accused of theft, Sir Brian said: “If I’d been wrongly accused of theft, I’d be perfectly happy for a judge to decide I’d been wrongly accused of theft.”

More broadly, he said: “I don’t see how you’re going to bring down the backlog without more money, more sitting days, greater efficiency, and speedier trials…

“There aren’t the judges, there aren’t the court staff, more significantly there aren’t the advocates.”

He said that the justice system had never been in such a “calamitous” state.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

‘The reforms are about fairness’

Courts minister Sarah Sackman also defended the decision on Tuesday’s Politics Hub. She acknowledged that jury trials were “a success story”, and “a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so after today’s plans”.

But she added: “What’s not such a success story is the fact that we inherited record and rising backlogs in our courts.

“Today the number starts at 80,000 cases, and it’s on the rise – due to hit 100,000 by 2028.”

That leaves victims “waiting for their case to be heard”. She argued that the measures announced on Tuesday were “a set of reforms that will restore confidence in our justice system, get those delays down, and indeed preserve jury trials for the most serious cases”.

Ms Sackman added that “right now in our system, 90% of cases [are] being heard without a jury in our magistrates”, which is “fair, robust justice”.

“Part of fairness is about the swiftness we need to deliver swifter justice for victims,” she said.

“What’s not fair is a victim of crime being told today that she needs to wait until 2029, 2030 for her day in court.”

The minister gave an example of what will change, saying: “Supposing a defendant is accused of stealing a bottle of whisky.

“Is it right that we allow the defendant to insist on a slower, more expensive jury trial in the same queue as the victim of rape, making her wait and in some cases, justice not being served?

“That’s the choice that we’ve made today.”

But the minister refused to say how much this would reduce the backlog by.