Judge to review juries
Justice secretary says we need a different way of managing Crown Courts
As foreshadowed here yesterday and on Monday, the justice secretary is expected to ask a former judge to conduct a review of the criminal justice system that could recommend limiting the right to jury trial in the Crown Courts of England and Wales. An announcement is expected later today.
“We do have to ask ourselves,” Shabana Mahmood told LBC yesterday, “what does justice look like when you have a Crown Court backlog that's that high, and I do believe that justice delayed is justice denied. So we are going to have to think about a different way of managing our Crown Courts so that we can crack down on that backlog properly.”
The former judge, who still holds an important position in public life, was asked to review the criminal justice system about a decade ago. His findings, which I have seen, considered the arguments reported by Lord Justice Auld in 2001 for removing the right of defendants facing middle-ranking offences to choose jury trial.
A change of this kind would save time and money. But those who suggested that the mode of trial for these “either-way” charges should be decided in the magistrates’ court argued that there should be a right of appeal to a circuit judge, given the importance of the decision to some defendants.
Update 1300: Mahmood has confirmed that the reviewer will be Sir Brian Leveson, former president of the High Court Queen’s Bench division, who will continue in his post as the investigatory powers commissioner.
A statement from her department said she had
commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts which will consider the merits of longer-term reform and, with agreement of the lady chief justice, review the efficiency and timeliness of processes (including those of partner agencies) in cases through charge to conviction/acquittal.
The Ministry of Justice said Leveson would be asked to consider “whether magistrates should be empowered to look at more cases, freeing up capacity in the Crown Court to consider the more complex, serious crimes”.
This suggests limiting the right to jury trial — either because offences that are currently tried by juries would become summary-only or because the mode of trial in cases that may be tried either way would be decided by the court rather than by the defendant.
That’s confirmed by Leveson’s terms of reference, which say he should consider:
longer-term options for criminal court reform, with the aim of reducing demand on the Crown Court by retaining more cases in the lower courts. These could include:
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 resources.
An intermediate court would deal with cases described by the Ministry of Justice as “too serious for magistrates’ courts but not serious enough for the Crown Court”. These could be heard by a judge sitting with at least two magistrates.
In examining these issues, Leveson is required to consider “the potential impacts of any structural changes on the fairness of proceedings, particularly the impact on court users such as witnesses and defendants, and how these could be mitigated where necessary”.
The second part of his terms of reference deals with efficiency and timeliness in court processes.
This covers:
Consideration of how processes through charge to conviction/acquittal could be improved to maximise efficiency. This includes looking at the processes of the courts but also those of partner agencies in the criminal justice system that affect the efficiency of the criminal courts.
Consideration of how effectively previous recommendations — including those contained within his own review of efficiency in criminal proceedings — have been implemented and whether more could be done to increase efficiency within the criminal courts.
Consideration of previous recommendations within the current context of challenges facing the criminal courts and how these might be updated or built upon.
Consideration of how new technologies, including artificial intelligence, could be used to improve the criminal courts.
Leveson has been asked to produce options for long-term reform by late spring 2025 and findings on court efficiency by the autumn. Submissions may be made by email and it’s expected that a website will be set up.
In a statement issued by the Ministry of Justice today, Leveson said:
I am pleased to contribute to the important task of seeking to address the very real difficulties facing the criminal justice system. A challenge of this scale requires innovative solutions and I look forward to making my recommendations to the lord chancellor in due course.
Mahmood added:
The scale of the Crown Court crisis inherited by this government is unprecedented. Despite the efforts of judges, lawyers and court staff, we simply cannot continue with the status quo.
To deliver the government’s bold plan for change and make our streets safer, we require once-in-a-generation reform of a courts system stretched to breaking point.
In many cases, victims are waiting years to see their perpetrator put before a judge and we know that, for many victims, justice delayed is as good as justice denied.
We owe it to victims to find bold, innovative approaches that will speed up justice, deliver safer streets and send a clear message to criminals that they will quickly face the consequences of their actions.
Background
Leveson’s report on efficiency in criminal justice proceedings, published in January 2015 and referred in my preview this morning, can be read here. I offered some views on it in the Guardian a few months later.
My reference yesterday to a “retired senior judge with a lifetime’s experience of the criminal justice system from the bar to the bench” could refer only to Leveson: no surviving former lord chief justice was a criminal specialist before being appointed the senior judge of England and Wales.
As president of the Queen’s Bench division from 2013, Leveson was well placed for appointment as lord chief justice when Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd retired in 2017. But Liz Truss, who was justice secretary at the time, excluded him from consideration by insisting that the chief justice should be someone who was able to serve for at least four years. Leveson would have to retire in 2019 when he turned 70. The judicial retirement age has since been raised to 75.
Though best known to the public for his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press in 2012, Leveson’s expertise as a criminal specialist was recognised in 2017 when he was made head of criminal justice.
In a statement issued by the Ministry of Justice today, Leveson said:
I am pleased to contribute to the important task of seeking to address the very real difficulties facing the criminal justice system. A challenge of this scale requires innovative solutions and I look forward to making my recommendations to the lord chancellor in due course.
Mahmood added:
The scale of the Crown Court crisis inherited by this government is unprecedented. Despite the efforts of judges, lawyers and court staff, we simply cannot continue with the status quo.
To deliver the government’s bold plan for change and make our streets safer, we require once-in-a-generation reform of a courts system stretched to breaking point.
In many cases, victims are waiting years to see their perpetrator put before a judge, and we know for many victims, justice delayed is as good as justice denied.
We owe it to victims to find bold, innovative approaches that will speed up justice, deliver safer streets and send a clear message to criminals that they will quickly face the consequences of their actions.
More of the Labour Party picking up failed Conservative Party ideas and running with them. Save this erosion of liberty is from a Labour Government.
Why not legislate a category of offences to be tried by a single judge sitting without a jury? It works efficiently and is respected in family law cases. I recognise that any change will constitute a departure from trial by peers and be controversial. But this would offer more significant protection to process than simply moving more serious cases before lay magistrates.