Effective intermediate courts require resources and safeguards

CILEX has backed the introduction of intermediate criminal courts – but only if systemic problems around funding, recruitment, training and courtroom capacity are addressed.

Criminal law members broadly supported the proposed intermediate courts detailed in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, aimed at tackling the current case backlog. The new courts would see cases too serious for magistrates’ courts but not serious enough for the Crown Court heard by a judge and two magistrates.

Responding to the review, CILEX said its practitioners were divided on whether the change would result in better justice for victims but considered that swifter justice would be beneficial. It argued for “assurances and safeguards to ensure that access to justice is maintained or increased” and highlighted the benefits of jury trials which “have been shown to provide a more equitable, and therefore more just, conviction”.

CILEX said that if magistrates sitting in intermediate courts were given the power to hand down sentences of over two years, they would need a suitable qualification. “This qualification could involve having sat in the magistrates’ court previously for a number of years or having other legal experience such as being a paralegal or having undertaken a Level 3-6 legal qualification.”

It argued for more investment to hire additional magistrates, given that their numbers have halved since 2010/11 and adequate legal aid funding as well as investment in courtrooms and training court staff.

CILEX practitioners did not expect intermediate courts to make their practice easier – many thought they would actually make the job of a criminal lawyer harder still. Initiatives such as pilots and lead-in training before wider rollout “will ensure that any impacts on already struggling practitioners and firms are minimised”.

CILEX opposed giving magistrates’ courts greater sentencing powers – this would “merely be a way of shifting serious trials which should be tried on indictment from the Crown Court backlog to the magistrates’ backlog. This would be a disservice to both defendants and to victims”.

More broadly, the response highlighted considerable limitations when it came to courts operating efficiently and productively. An inability to recruit and retain lawyers, lack of funding for court space, and a failure to enforce service level agreements with third parties such as companies which transport prisoners to court, prevent maximum productivity being achieved.

CILEX also cautioned that the number of sitting days is not representative of time actually used within each day, as the number of hours courts sit per day fell from 3.6 in 2017 to 2.8 in 2022.

CILEX President Yanthé Richardson commented that “victims, defendants and all those working in the criminal justice system are currently being failed by systemic problems that have remained unresolved for years and have resulted in a backlog of over 73,000 cases”.

She said that, while CILEX cautiously supported the creation of intermediate courts as a means of “freeing up Crown Court time and bringing swifter justice for victims of crime”, CILEX was realistic about the challenges faced and “government will need to provide additional funding and resources if the benefits of this reform are to be realised”.