In December 2024 the Lord Chancellor announced an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. The former President of the Queen's Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice, Sir Brian Leveson, was appointed to conduct the review and he has now delivered his recommendations.
The purpose of the review was to produce options and recommendations for:
- How the criminal courts could be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, in light of the current pressures on the criminal justice system; and
- How they could operate as efficiently as possible.
The recommendations
The forty five recommendations contained within Sir Brian's report will, if accepted and implemented by the government, deliver changes to the criminal justice system which will have far reaching effects and implications. The recommendations set out in the report (which can be accessed in full here) include the following which are likely to give rise to significant debate:
Removing the right to elect crown court trial for certain low level offences. The removal should apply to offences with a maximum sentence length of less than or equal to two years
The reclassification of certain either way offences (which are offences that can be heard in the magistrates' court or the crown court) to summary only (meaning that they can only be heard at the magistrates' court.
The creation of a new division of the crown court: the Crown Court Bench Division. There would be a presumption that all either way offences in which defendants could expect to receive no more than three years imprisonment on conviction would have their cases tried by a judge and two magistrates.
Defendants in the crown court should be allowed to elect to be tried by judge alone, subject to the trial judge's consent.
Serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by judge alone. Eligible cases would be defined "by their hidden dishonesty or complexity that is outside the understanding of the general public".
Reactions
Unsurprisingly, reaction to the proposals has been mixed. Comments quoted in the media include Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association who 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."
The Magistrates' Association has welcomed the review, saying it will speed up justice for thousands with Mark Beattie, national chair of the Magistrates' Association, quoted as saying:
"Magistrates are ready and willing to support these and other initiatives aimed at reducing the pressure on crown courts,"
"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."
Sir Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police Commissioner has 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."
Comment
These changes, if adopted and passed into legislation by the Government, would represent a seismic change in the criminal justice system.
There can be no doubt that at present, the Criminal Justice System is in crisis. The current backlog of cases at the crown court in England and Wales is over 75,000, a backlog exacerbated by Covid which has increased ever since.
It is agreed amongst all practitioners and observers that urgent measures need to be taken to address the situation or risk a total system collapse. However, opinion is already sharply divided on whether or not curtailing an individual's right to be judged by their peers is the most effective way of addressing these issues, with many pointing out a wide range of factors which have contributed to the current crisis, including practitioners leaving criminal law with fewer numbers joining the profession to replace them and a perceived lack of funding and investment by successive governments over many years.
Leveson's proposals, if adopted, would mean that a defendant's right to elect crown court trial would either be removed or curtailed. This would apply to a number of offences, including dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.
Many criminal practitioners advise their clients to elect crown court trial when they are given the option of doing so. There will be a number of reasons for this, including the perception that juries will apply their common sense and experience to a situation, which it is felt that magistrates sometimes fail to do. As Leveson himself acknowledges, there is an apprehension in some quarters about the quality of justice delivered by the magistrates' court.
It is acknowledged that jury trials are costlier and tend to run significantly longer than magistrates' court trials, so there may be a cost saving to those concerned in the funding of criminal cases by there being fewer jury trials.
However, while there can be little doubt that urgent reform of the criminal justice system is needed, it remains to be seen whether or not the Government is prepared to make such far reaching and radical reforms.
For more information or advice, please contact one of our experts in our Criminal Motor Defence Team.
