A divisionDivision No. 396 · Wednesday, 7 January 2026· Commons· Crime & Policing

Opposition Day: Jury trials

182Ayes
290Noes
Defeated · majority 108 · Government won
176 did not vote
Aye184No290DID NOT VOTE · 176

648 Members · Aye 182 · No 290 · DNV 176 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 7 January 2026 on a Conservative opposition day motion on jury trials. The motion was defeated by 290 votes to 182. Opposition day motions are a procedural device that allows parties not in government to bring their preferred topics to a vote in the Commons; they are rarely binding but signal parliamentary opinion. The Conservatives backed the motion; the government voted against it. The vote concerned the role of jury trials in the criminal justice system, with the motion broadly supporting their use or resisting restrictions on them. The government's no vote signals its preference for its own approach to court reform, which has separately featured in the Victims and Courts Bill. The outcome does not immediately change the law but places on record a significant body of parliamentary opinion in favour of protecting jury trial rights. Every Labour and Labour and Co-operative MP who voted backed the government's no position, with no Labour rebels recorded. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, Reform UK and most independents all voted aye, forming a broad cross-party bloc in favour of the motion, though that was not enough to overcome the government's majority. The vote sits alongside a cluster of related divisions on the Victims and Courts Bill in March 2026, in which the government consistently defeated Lords amendments, suggesting a sustained parliamentary contest over criminal justice and court procedure.

Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition's position on jury trials, likely defending their use or opposing government plans to restrict them
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition motion, backing the government's approach to jury trial policy
§ 01Who voted how.472 voting Members · 176 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
261
100
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
100
0
16
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
58
0
13
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
27
15
Independent
8
2
3
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
3
0
5
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Robert JenrickOpposedNewark
Jury trials are a centuries-old cornerstone of liberty that should not be abolished; the backlog should be fixed through increased court sitting days, better management, and investment, not by removing fundamental constitutional rights.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,938 words)
Sarah SackmanSupportiveFinchley and Golders Green
The justice system is in crisis requiring structural reform; restricting jury trials for less serious cases is a necessary modernisation based on expert review, alongside investment and technology improvements, to ensure swift justice for victims.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,610 words)
Jess Brown-FullerOpposedChichester
While supporting the Opposition motion, agrees the system is broken but believes the real solutions lie in fixing court infrastructure, IT systems, prisoner transport, and increasing sitting days—not removing jury trial rights.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,455 words)
David DavisOpposedGoole and Pocklington
The jury system is morally fundamental to justice; the Government should address systemic management failures in the Ministry of Justice rather than remove an institution that has not been the source of miscarriage of justice cases.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,766 words)
Andy SlaughterSupportiveHammersmith and Chiswick
Trial by jury is not immutable; restricting it is a matter of degree and judgment where the line can be redrawn; all of Leveson's recommendations should be considered as a package to address the severe crisis.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,640 words)
Karl TurnerOpposedKingston upon Hull East
Agrees with most of the Opposition's critique; the Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association, and all legal stakeholders are united in opposition to removing jury trials, making this policy problematic.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,708 words)
Sir Desmond SwayneOpposedNew Forest West
This is a distraction that will not deliver its intended solution; Labour MPs are being led up a hill again on a measure that simply won't work, echoing failures like the farm tax and winter fuel allowance.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (108 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0