As noted in the previous post, Leveson made 45 recommendations which are summarised from page 15 of his report.
The report states that the criminal justice system is in crisis and greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve the issue.
There is also a need to improve efficiency but no amount of efficiency gains alone can solve all the problems. 'The system is too broken.' The report is to have
a second volume dealing with efficiency.Leveson argues that his package of recommendations needs to be looked at as a whole: it is an across-the-board series of recommendations and should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-and-mix’ series of options.
If the report is adopted by government and appropriate legislation enacted, there will be considerably fewer jury trials and they will apply only to the most serious offences. That is, of course, the area where trials generally take longer and can take several weeks thus placing considerable demand on jurors.
Magistrates' Courts
Recommendation 14 is to remove the right of a defendant charged with an 'either way' offence to elect for trial in the Crown Court. This will apply when the maximum sentence is 2 years imprisonment or less.
The Magistrates' Court will have a permanent maximum sentencing power of 12 months imprisonment (Rec 15).
Where the right to elect for Crown Court remains, the allocation procedure will change (Rec 16).
Criminal damage will be triable summarily when the value involved is up to £10,000 (Rec 17).
Some either-way offences will be reclassified as summary (Rec 18).
The automatic right to appeal to Crown Court will be removed and permission to appeal required (Rec 21), Any appeal will not be a re-hearing of the case but will be limited to the grounds for which appeal is granted. (Rec 22).
To encourage earlier engagement in the Crown Court, Goodyear indications will become the norm (Rec 23) and the maximum discount for an early guilty plea will rise to 40%.(Rec 27).
The proposed trial structure
Summary only offences will remain triable in the Magistrates' Court. More either-way offences will remain with the Magistrates' Court. Either-way offences tried in the Crown Court will normally be tried without a jury.
Recommendation 30 is to create a new Division in the Crown Court. The proposed name is Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD). All either-way offences sent to Crown Court will be eligible for trial in the CCBD with a presumption that they will be tried there if the prospective sentence is 3 years or less.
The CCBD will not have juries. The proposal is a Judge sitting with two magistrates (JPs). It is claimed (Chapter 8 para 32) that this will retain 'community participation' in the absence of a jury and Leveson is confident that enough magistrates will be willing to sit in the CCBD for up to a week at a time. (For what it is worth, I would not be as certain. Leveson acknowledges that it is a big commitment for volunteers and we know that employed magistrates can have considerable difficulty with employers regarding time off work).
Trial by judge alone
Chapter 9 is essential reading in FULL. Of importance are recommendations 43 to 45.
Recommendation 43 enables a defendant to waive jury trial. It appears that this will apply to ANY trial in the Crown Court - even the most serious. The agreement of the judge will be required.
Recommendation 44 is an old chestnut ! (Roskill Report 1986). The phrase 'complexity that is outside the understanding of the general public' is interesting and one wonders whether other areas will, over time, be considered to be in this category.
Recommendation 45 is a further reason for judges to dispense with jury trial - 'exceptional length or complexity.'
Annex G to the report contains 4 lists: those offences which may become summary, offences where right to elect for Crown Court will be restricted (Restricted Right to Elect or RRTE), offences to be normally allocated to the proposed CCBD, offences in the serious fraud category to be tried by judge alone.
Overview
The report as a whole considers other important areas and, as Leveson suggests, the report needs to be treated as a whole package. For instance, greater use of Out of Court Resolutions will keep many cases out of the courts.
The proposed 40% sentence discount (for early guilty plea) is likely to receive a bad press and will be viewed in combination with proposals for early release from prison put forward by David Gauke (previous post).
The proposals to dispense with jury trial will probably raise the most concern. The backlog of cases has been created mainly by the refusal of government to adequately fund the court system. The under-funding has existed since around 2010. Covid-19 also impacted the system but the backlog was already high when the pandemic began. Increasing complexity of some cases is also said to be a factor because it has lengthened trials.
In response to the report, Barbara Mills KC (Chair of the Bar Council) said - ‘Changing the fundamental structure of delivering criminal justice is not a principled response to a crisis which was not caused by that structure in the first place ....' Bar Council 9 July 2025
That is, I believe, correct but in what other way can the trial backlog be both reduced and then not allowed to rise again and bring about a further crisis?
It is debatable whether there will actually be enough Magistrates to take on both additional work in the Magistrates' Court as well as sitting in the proposed CCBD. Leveson is confident that a sufficient number of magistrates will be able to take on work in the CCBD. However, the number of magistrates has decreased markedly over the last 10 years or so and many Magistrate Court locations have been closed. A great deal of experience has been lost in the process. Recruitment of more magistrates is likely but I foresee a greater number of salaried District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) being required.
Efficiency improvements were put forward in Leveson's 2015 report. Yet, the Magistrates' Courts cannot truly be said to be highly efficient and trial delays are far from unusual. Suggestions on efficiency will come with Volume 2.
The response from the Ministry of Justice is awaited and so is Leveson's Report Volume 2.
However one views this, the days of the trial jury in England and Wales appear to be numbered if the report is fully implemented.
Responses
Joshua Rozenberg 9 July 2025 and 10 July 2025
Bar Council 9 July 2025 - Barbara Mills KC (Chair of the Bar Council) - 'Changing the fundamental structure of delivering criminal justice is not a principled response to a crisis which was not caused by that structure in the first place ....'
Criminal Bar Association response
Magistrates' Association welcomes Leveson Review - the Association states that the recommendations, 'if implemented, will speed-up justice for victims, witnesses and defendants who are being denied justice by the ever-increasing backlog in the crown courts.'
House of Commons - debate 9 July 2025 - Trial by jury: proposed restrictions
ICLR 14 July 2025 and the ICLR list of cases cited in the Leveson report
A. Benn, ‘In Crisis: the ‘Constitutional’ Right to Jury Trial’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (18th July 2025) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))
Red Lion Chambers - Substack - Leveson Part 1 Abolishing Jury Trial in Complex Fraud
Other links
The “Lammy Review” 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment