The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, has published Part 1 of its report on the Criminal Justice System. Part 1 of the report (the “Policy Review”) recommends major changes to the criminal justice system. Part 2 (the “Efficiency Review”) will follow later in 2025 and will deal with recommendations as to better use of technology and people management.
It is no secret that the criminal justice system in England and Wales faces severe backlogs and delays. As the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied”, an expression felt keenly by victims of crimes forced to wait years for cases to be heard in Court. As of December 2024, 75,000 cases were pending in the Crown Court, more than double the number from 2019, with cases being listed for trial as far away as 2029. The status quo is imposing an unsustainable burden on the criminal courts and causing injustice to participants in the justice system.
In December 2024, the Lord Chancellor announced an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the “IRCC”) to investigate these issues. The IRCC, led by Sir Brian Leveson, has recently published Part 1 of its report (the “Report”) – a 388-page document comprising the most detailed review of the justice system in 10 years. It seeks to diagnose the problems currently faced by the criminal courts and recommend a package of reforms to stabilise and sustainably improve the criminal justice system in the short- and long-terms.
What is the cause of the courts backlogs and delays?
The Report acknowledges that there is no single cause of the current problems faced by the criminal courts, but that such causes include:
- severe underfunding in the justice system, resulting in fewer available courts and significant backlogs.
- criminal trials becoming more evidentially complex and lengthy as a result of technological developments, juries now routinely being required to wade through large amounts of cell phone or computer data, and/or DNA analysis.
- a recent focus on proactive policing that was not accompanied by an increase in funding in other parts of the justice system; and
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and industrial action by the criminal bar in 2022.
The result of these and other causes is that, according to the Report, “criminal justice is in crisis” with a real risk of “total system collapse”.
What reforms, to the UK justice system, are recommended?
The Report recommends a “package” of across-the-board reforms to overcome the current crisis and stabilise the justice system for the future. Below are some of the most significant proposed changes, aimed at restructuring the system to maximise efficiency whilst maintaining fairness for participants.
Reform 1 – Establishing the Crown Court Bench Division
The Crown Court was identified as the criminal court currently under the most strain. To alleviate this issue and increase the efficiency of trials, the Report recommends the creation of a new division of the Crown Court, called the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD). This division would be able to hear either-way offences, with only a judge and two magistrates present, avoiding the more extensive resources required for jury trials. A decision would be made at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) to allocate an either-way case to either the Crown Court Bench Division or the Crown Court with a jury, with a presumption that cases with sentences likely to be below 3 years are allocated to the CCBD. The Report recommends that Parliament should set a framework to guide PTPH judges in their decision-making to increase consistency in allocations.
Reform 2 – Right to elect judge-only trials in complex cases (such as fraud cases)
The Report also proposes that defendants should be allowed to elect to be tried by a judge-alone, particularly for complex cases, with consent from the trial judge. Judge-alone trials for serious offences already form part of the justice systems of other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Furthermore, the Report specifically recommends that trials by judge-alone should be directed (with appropriate guidance set out in Practice Directions) in:
- serious and complex fraud cases involving factors (such as hidden dishonesty or other particular complexity) which bring them outside the understanding of the general public; and
- cases anticipated to be exceptionally long or complex (within the meaning in s 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996).
Reform 3 – Better use of the Magistrates’ Court for lower-level offences
The Report notes that the Magistrates’ Court has a significantly faster disposal rate than the Crown Court and is better suited to deal with many lower-level offences. The Report recommends removing the right to elect a Crown Court trial for offences in which the maximum sentence is 2 years or less (for example, low-level theft, criminal damage less than £10,000, etc.), and reclassifying a list of either-way offences to summary only, so as to better utilise the Magistrates’ Court.
Alongside this, the Report recommends that the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court be replaced with a requirement for permission to appeal, so as to avoid full re-hearings in unmeritorious cases.
Reform 4 – Increased use of Out of Court Resolutions
The Report calls for a more effective use of Out of Court Resolutions (OOCRs), which involve police and prosecutors utilising out-of-court initiatives (such as cautions, penalty notices and community resolutions) for low-level offences, freeing up court resources for more serious crimes. The use of OOCRs has decreased by 35% between 2015 and 2025, for a variety of reasons. The Report recommends that OOCRs be considered at the charging stage by the Police and the CPS in all appropriate cases. It stresses that there needs to be uniformity amongst OOCR eligibility guidelines, achieved through further national guidance to limit regional dissimilarities. The Report also recognises the risk of the public perceiving these penalties as lenient and aims to mitigate that risk through transparent communication.
Comments and key takeaways
The Report is comprehensive and recommends urgent and wide-ranging reform. It estimates that its recommendations would save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the Crown Court each year through diversion of appropriate cases to the CCBD and the Magistrates’ court, which would free up valuable space for juries to hear the most serious cases appropriate to their expertise, and increase efficiency across all courts.
As the UK’s leading law firm for Private Prosecutions, Edmonds Marshall McMahon knows first-hand that delays in the criminal justice process can re-victimise those who have already suffered significantly at the hands of fraudsters and other wrongdoers. Furthermore, swift action is necessary to secure compensation for victims and to prevent offenders from making off with their ill-gotten gains. Justice delayed by many years can feel a Pyrrhic victory at best, or worse, a failure of justice. It is hoped that these reforms will be fit for purpose, and contribute to making our justice system more efficient, better equipped, and ultimately more just for all parties.
