Court reforms proposed to tackle crisis in criminal courts

Sir Brian Leveson has unveiled fundamental changes aimed at reducing the number of jury trials and resolving more cases out of court.

The recommendations of his independent review of the criminal courts are designed to reduce sitting days in the Crown Court by hearing more cases in magistrates’ courts and through the proposed creation of a Crown Court Bench Division to hear less serious offences and complex fraud cases. Trials in this ‘intermediate court’ would be heard by two magistrates and a judge rather than a jury.

Sir Brian said the criminal justice system stood at “a critical juncture”. 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. This situation is simply unacceptable.”

His recommendations represented “a cohesive package of reforms designed to transform our courts into a system that provides appropriate and fair decision-making” and took “a proportionate approach to trial processes while maintaining the fundamental right to a fair trial”.

Other key proposals included increased use of out-of-court resolutions, including more cautions, conditional cautions and other available mechanisms to divert cases away from the courts.

There would be 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’ and the maximum sentence reduction for guilty pleas at first opportunity increased to 40% to encourage quicker case resolution.

Responding to the proposals, then CILEX president Yanthé Richardson agreed that the report offered much-needed solutions, and that the proposals had “the potential to deliver swifter redress for the victims of crime”.

She said, however, that it also “raises questions about how magistrates’ courts will handle the extra caseload, as well as the impact on access to justice”.

CILEX argued that removing the right to elect to have a Crown Court trial for certain offences would “simply shift many of the issues we are currently seeing in the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court, putting them under significant strain and overloading them with cases they are not fully equipped to deal with”.

This would be exacerbated by the new division of the Crown Court taking magistrates away from the lower courts at a time of increased workload.

Ms Richardson continued: “Giving the new intermediate courts the same sentencing powers as the Crown Court is likely to result in sentence inflation, while removing the automatic right to appeal from magistrates threatens access to justice. We could see defendants prevented from appealing due to the cost of applying for permission unless fee relief is made available for this purpose.”

She warned that these were not the only unintended consequences likely to come from the reforms.

“While a greater willingness from the judiciary to provide sentencing indications would be welcome, we do not want to see them become mandatory as this would inevitably prompt a large number of guilty pleas for lower sentences, even in cases of innocence.

“Out-of-court resolutions are also a positive step but we must ensure defendants have access to suitable legal advice to counter the risk of individuals taking lesser sentences without an understanding of how this might impact them in the future.”

Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood said ministers would consider the recommendations and respond ahead of legislating changes in the autumn.