David Lammy was forced into a humiliating u-turn after abandoning the most controversial part of his plan to abolish thousands of jury trials.

The Justice Secretary told MPs judges will decide guilt in cases "with a likely sentence of three years or less" in new so-called "Swift Courts".

Leaked plans last week revealed the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to go even further, with juries only hearing murder, rape, manslaughter and “public interest cases” carrying sentences of over five years.

This prompted widespread fury from lawyers, judges and rival political parties.

Under Mr Lammy’s new plans, some sexual assault, drug dealing and robbery cases will now be heard by a single judge.

Ministry of Justice modelling suggests that the number of cases going to trial will be cut in half.

Mr Lammy told MPs: "I will create new ‘Swift Courts’ within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable-either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20 percent faster than jury trials.

"Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials.

"Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases.

"And I agree that they – and the magistracy – should decide where a case is heard. This will prevent defendants from gaming the system: Choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success… …and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up."

Despite Mr Lammy's radical reforms, which critics have warned could fail victims, or lead to miscarriages of justice, the Crown Court backlogs could continue to get worse.

Ministry of Justice figures show a record-high backlog of crown court cases totalling more than 78,000, and trials listed as far as 2030.

Ministers have warned the backlog could rise to 100,000 by 2028 if nothing is done, with a growing number of victims giving up on seeking justice because of the lengthy delays.

He told MPs: "The backlog will get worse before it gets better.

But we are pulling every possible lever to move it in a positive direction and my ambition is for the backlog to start coming down bythe end of this Parliament."

And the under-fire Justice Secretary insisted jury trials will remain a "cornerstone" of the UK legal system, whilst magistrates will have their sentencing powers extended.

They will be able to lock criminals up for 18 months, though Mr Lammy admitted he could extend this to two years.

He said: "Alongside these changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to 2 years.

"These reforms are bold. But they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious crimes… …those likely to receive a sentence over three years... …and all indictable-only offences. Among others, this will include: Rape, murder, manslaughter… …grievous bodily harm, robbery, and arson with intent to kill."

The Ministry of Justice will scrap the right of defendants to “elect” a jury trial for so-called “either way offences”.

This, they believe, will end the “emergency” engulfing the Crown Court system with trials listed for 2029 or 2030.

Judges will initially assess a case, and if it is “likely” to result in a three-year prison sentence or less, it will be heard by either a magistrate or the new Crown Court Bench Division.

Neither of these will require a jury, it is understood.

But judges in the Crown Court Bench Division will retain full sentencing powers, meaning that if the evidence of a case stipulates that a longer prison term is necessary, the judge can utilise them and lock up the criminal for longer.

This means that, whilst hearing a sexual assault case, a single judge could hear all the evidence, convict and sentence a criminal to four or five years behind bars.

Justice chiefs believe it will still take years for the Crown Courts backlog to fall. The policy to abolish jury trials will be deemed a success if the backlog begins to fall by the end of this Parliament – in 2029, it is understood. The Bar Council has urged him not to replace juries with single judges, warning that doing so could damage public trust.

Mr Lammy suggested in an interview with the Times that he would back Sir Brian's proposals to limit jury trials to indictable-only offences, arguing that many defendants were "playing the system" by delaying guilty pleas in either-way cases to the last minute.

Proposals to curb jury trials have faced opposition from MPs and legal professionals, including from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council. Bar Council chairwoman Barbara Mills said on Tuesday: "We have continuously opposed proposals to curtail jury trials because there is no evidence that their removal would reduce the backlog, nor has it been set out how an alternative system would be resourced.

"Replacing juries with a judge alone is not the answer - according to the Institute for Government, few European countries allow lengthy sentences to be passed down by a single judge. And as the Lord Chancellor's own report in 2017 confirmed, juries enjoy public trust in part because they deliver equitable findings - regardless of ethnicity.

"We urge the government to reconsider pursuing radical changes under the mistaken belief that radical equals effective."

Riel Karmy-Jones, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: "The Government talks about its commitment to protect its citizens from harm, violence and sexual offences, but is eviscerating that protection by eroding the public's right to trial by jury.

"It is not juries that cause delays. Rather, it is all the consequences of the years of underfunding that look set to continue: the artificial cap on sitting days, the crumbling courts, the inadequate technology, the failure to deliver prisoners to court on time, the lack of interpreters, and issues with funding of expert witnesses."