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

On 7 January 2026, the House of Commons voted on an Opposition Day motion (a debate day allocated to the opposition to choose the topic) brought by the Conservative Party, calling for changes to jury trial procedures or access in England and Wales. The motion was defeated by 290 votes to 182, with the government's position prevailing. The vote concerned how criminal cases are tried, specifically whether to reform or expand access to jury trials. Jury trials are a fundamental feature of the English and Welsh legal system, giving defendants the right to be judged by a panel of their peers in serious criminal cases. Changes to their scope or procedures would affect defendants, victims, courts, and the wider administration of justice. The government's successful opposition to this motion means the status quo is preserved for now, and the Conservative proposals did not advance. The vote produced a clear government-versus-opposition split. All 100 Conservative MPs present voted Aye, joined by all 59 Liberal Democrats, all four Plaid Cymru and all four Green MPs present, three Reform UK members, two Democratic Unionists, and eight Independents. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voted almost entirely against, with only one Labour MP breaking ranks to support the motion. The result reflects the government's commanding Commons majority on a motion that drew broad but ultimately insufficient cross-opposition support. The vote sits alongside a series of related divisions in March 2026 on the Victims and Courts Bill, where the government repeatedly defeated Lords amendments by similar-sized majorities, suggesting a consistent government strategy of resisting changes to criminal justice legislation pressed by the Lords and the opposition.

Voting Aye meant
Support protecting or strengthening the right to jury trials in the criminal justice system
Voting No meant
Oppose the motion on jury trials, likely defending government reforms that may limit or modify the scope of jury trial entitlements
§ 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
59
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
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
Your 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