Ministers have scrapped plans that would have slashed the number of jury trials in England and Wales and replaced them with a judge sitting alone.

The proposals had sparked a fierce backlash from lawyers, who have welcomed the U-turn. But the victims’ commissioner expressed concern about the abandonment of measures drawn up by the then justice secretary, David Lammy, under Keir Starmer’s government, to tackle the record backlog in the courts.

There are almost 81,000 cases in the crown courts – with the number projected to hit 100,000 without the now-ditched changes – leaving victims and defendants waiting years for justice. The Ministry of Justice is selling the U-turn as a quicker way to address the problem, by saving the time it would take to set up a new judge-only crown court bench division.

The justice secretary, Alex Norris, said: “This government inherited criminal courts on the brink of collapse, with victims waiting years for their day in court. I remain committed to bringing down the backlog and delivering swifter justice for those who so desperately need it. But I have heard the strength of feeling on the proposals for increasing the number of judge-alone trials in the crown court and have made the decision to change course.

“This allows us to start that work far earlier, ensuring that under this government we do not have victims waiting endlessly for justice.

“Justice delayed is justice denied, and I am committed to maximising efficiencies in our system alongside record investment.”Lammy’s proposals came after a government-commissioned review by the former judge, Sir Brian Leveson, who recommended taking away the right to jury trial from thousands of defendants to prevent the criminal justice system from collapsing.

But critics, including Geoffrey Robertson, founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, where Starmer, Lammy and the attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, spent part of their professional careers, accused Labour of abandoning a centuries-old right and claiming that it would not reduce the backlog substantively. Some Labour MPs also opposed the move. Legislation would have removed jury trials for defendants who were likely to receive a sentence of up to three years.

Ministers have not abandoned judge-only trials altogether, but they will only be for a small number of especially lengthy and technical fraud cases where the judge decides a jury trial is not appropriate.

The government will also retain Lammy’s plans to take away the right of a defendant charged with an “either way” offence to decide whether they will be tried by a jury in the crown court or magistrates. Instead those decisions will be in the hands of magistrates.

And the planned increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers – from the current 12 months maximum to 18 months, with an option to extend to two years – will still go ahead.

Kirsty Brimelow, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, welcomed the new government’s “swift action” but said: “We underline that it is a dangerous experiment to increase sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect from defendants at a time when prisons are at capacity and the backlog of cases is accelerating in the magistrates courts.

She added: “We know that women, black people, mixed race people and older people elect jury trials more often than other groups and this proposal risks deepening existing disparities and exacerbating distrust in the justice system from minoritised communities.”The Law Society of England and Wales and the Criminal Bar Association also welcomed the change of heart while expressing concern about pushing more cases to magistrates. The former additionally called for more investment, including in legal aid.

The victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, said: “Victims are entitled to ask whether what remains will be enough to meet the challenge [of delivering swifter justice]. “Indeed, they are being asked to place their faith in a plan that ministers themselves previously argued would not be.

“The lessons from the prisons crisis should be clear: postponing difficult decisions rarely solves problems. More often, it simply stores them up for the future.

“Victims need hope. They need to know this is genuine reform that matches the scale of the challenge: reform that will alleviate their prolonged suffering, rather than an easy compromise that delivers only marginal improvements today while leaving both the justice system, and the victims who rely on it, vulnerable tomorrow.”

The courts minister, Sarah Sackman KC, said other steps to tackle the backlog could include using AI to help list cases, more virtual hearings and ensuring defendants arrive to court on time.