Review of the Criminal Courts - Why just a single reviewer?

 

As noted in the earlier post (12 December 2024), Sir Brian Leveson has been appointed by the government to conduct an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts - GOV.UK.

The terms of reference for the review are not only extensive but hint at possible reforms such as the reclassification of offences from triable either-way to summary only, consideration of magistrates' sentencing powers, the introduction of an Intermediate Court, any other structural changes to the courts or changes to mode of trial that will ensure the most proportionate use of resource.

Underlying all of this

is the enormous and increasing backlog of cases in the Crown Court. There are various reasons for the backlog but the entire criminal justice system has suffered from chronic underfunding for many years. The courts, the prison service, the probation service have all been starved of resources and frequently struggle to properly conduct their functions and often fail to do so in a timely manner.

The current Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is certainly correct to seek to address the problems and it may be that she sees an independent review - conducted by a single reviewer - as an efficient and reasonably speedy way of obtaining recommendations for reform. 

The review is required to report on options for long-term reform by late Spring 2025 and to follow up with findings on court efficiency by Autumn 2025. It will be open to government to accept or reject any recommendations. If legislation is required to implement any recommendations then it will be well into 2026 before that reaches the statute book. Hence, this will not be a rapid programme for change.

A deeper question appears. Is a review by one individual - no matter how eminent in the legal world - the proper way to go about this or should there have been, at least, a review to be conducted by several individuals drawn from different areas of the criminal justice system? At least to me, that would seem preferable and, with proper management, need not add significantly to the timescale.

Another option might have been a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, the last of which reported over 30 years ago - Royal Commission on Criminal Justice - GOV.UK 1993. That commission took 2 years on its work and was chaired by Viscount Runciman of Doxford and 10 other Commissioners. Many of its recommendations found their way into the legal system including the creation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission - (another underfunded body).

The state of finances probably ruled out a Royal Commission even if one were thought desirable but the idea of having a review team with broader and in-depth experience of the several areas forming the criminal justice 'system' ought not to have been ruled out.

Those with views will doubtless wish to offer them to Sir Brian as he goes about his work. Details of how one might do that remain to be seen.