Thousands of cases that would normally be heard in front of a jury should be decided by judges alone, according to recommendations made by a former senior judge.

Sir Brian Leveson was asked by the Lord Chancellor to come up with a series of proposals to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts.

There are almost 77,000 cases waiting for trial in the Crown Court in England and Wales – meaning some defendants and victims are waiting years for justice.

After reviewing the state of the criminal courts, Sir Brian suggested “fundamental” reforms to “reduce the risk of total system collapse.” But some barristers argue juries are essential for fair justice – and scrapping them is wrong.

To fix what he calls a broken system, Sir Brian has suggested having judge-only trials for certain cases such as fraud and bribery.

Another recommendation involves having more out of court resolutions like cautions.

He wants a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle less serious offences, and to increase the number of sentence reductions for guilty pleas at the first opportunity offered.

This is all about shortening the process in the hope of cutting the big backlog.

“Our criminal justice system stands at a critical juncture,” said Sir Brian who was requested to look into the matter in December last year.

“It is well recognised that justice delayed is justice denied but the record and rising court backlog means victims, witnesses and defendants are waiting months, sometimes years, for cases to come to trial – unable to move on with their lives,” he added.

Sir Brian noted the proposed changes are designed “to transform our courts into a system that provides appropriate and fair decision-making.”

He continued: “It also takes a proportionate approach to trial processes while maintaining the fundamental right to a fair trial.

“These are not small tweaks but fundamental changes that will seek to make the system fit for the 21st century.”

The proposals would mean more cases will be heard in the magistrates’ courts, with jury trials reserved for the most serious cases.

Either way, offences with a maximum custodial sentence of two years or less, such as possession of drugs, bike theft and voyeurism, could face lower penalties of 12 months imprisonment or less.

Defendants in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would also no longer be able to choose a jury trial.

Not all lawyers agree with the suggested changes, however.

And in response, Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “Any fundamental change is going to require the criminal barristers who prosecute and defend in the Crown Court to believe that this is the best way forward.

“As this is such a radical change to the criminal justice system we will be listening to what our members say. There is a lot to digest.”

Manisha Knights, Solicitor Advocate with MK Law, said: “Our jury system is central and pivotal to our justice system.

“With juries comes diversity whereas the judiciary still very much lacks it. The right to be tried by one’s peers should not be removed or be diluted in any way, shape or form.”

But the Magistrates’ Association welcomed the review, saying it will speed up justice for thousands.

“Magistrates are ready and willing to support these and other initiatives aimed at reducing the pressure on Crown Courts,” said Mark Beattie, national chair of the Magistrates’ Association.

“We urge the government to implement Leveson’s recommendations as soon as possible. Every day that they aren’t in place, is a day when victims, witnesses and defendants have to wait for justice.”

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said: “As Sir Brian rightly identifies, criminal justice in this country runs the risk of “total system collapse” unless we take the radical steps needed to reverse years of decline.

“It cannot be right that in London more than 100 trials listed are for 2029. This is intolerable for victims and all parties who rely on a properly functioning court system to provide closure from what are often traumatic experiences, made worse by persistent delays.”

He added: “I welcome this report and look forward to working with partners across government to deliver the bold reforms that are now a necessity, not an option.”

Among the recommendations are:

• A reclassification of certain offences
• The creation of a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle “less serious offences”, which would include some theft, burglary, and fraud offences
• Greater use of out of court resolutions – which would allow the police to deal quickly with lower level, often first time offending – including increased use of cautions and conditional cautions
• Removal of the right to elect trial in cases where the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment with reclassification of some offences to “summary only” (meaning they will only be heard in a magistrates’ court)
• The threshold for criminal damage being dealt with as a summary only offence to be increased from £5,000 to £10,000.
• Maximum sentence reduction increased to 40% for guilty pleas at first opportunity, encouraging quicker case resolution
• Judge-alone trials introduced either by election on the part of the defendant or for the most complex cases

The review recommended the immediate implementation of key reforms but acknowledged that many of the changes will take time to introduce, and “must be managed carefully to ensure the public is never put at risk”.

The government says it will now consider all of Sir Brian’s recommendations, and will respond in full ahead of legislation in the autumn.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in a statement: “I have already lifted courts funding to record levels, funding 4,000 more court sitting days than under my predecessors.

“But swifter justice requires bold reform, and that is what I asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose.”

She added: “As part of our Plan for Change, I will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims.”

A second review focusing on court efficiency will be published later this year.