19th century criminal trials are too expensive, says Leveson

Late night hearings, use of evidence from body-worn cameras and tighter case management by judges are just three of the recommendations Sir Brian Leveson has made to improve the criminal justice system.

Sir Brian was asked to find ways to make the system more efficient and streamlined by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. He suggested more flexible opening hours in magistrates' courts for those unable to attend during office hours, and facilitating the use of evidence gathered by police video cameras mounted onto their bodies and helmets. Some 16,000 Metropolitan officers are to be issued with the technology in Spring 2016, following successful trials.

Judges also came under fire for their lack of case management, with the suggestion that timetables for evidence and speeches should be used during trials.

Other proposals made were remote hearings in the Crown Court, evidence delivered electronically, such as interviews with defendants and child witnesses, and stricter contracts with companies responsible for delivering prisoners to court.

While compiling his recommendations, Sir Brian delivered heavy criticism on the antiquated proceedings found in the criminal courts.

"Our conduct of criminal trials was designed in the 19th century with many changes and reforms bolted on, especially over the last 30 years. The result is that it has become inefficient, time consuming and, as a result, very expensive."

Sir Brian advised that funding should be made available to pay for the inevitable cost of changing from the current systems to more efficient ones, and did not skirt around the issue of swingeing cuts to the justice system.

"It is clear that all aspects of the system are going to have to live with diminished resources for years to come. Quite apart from questions of necessary reform, therefore, it is vital that we find ways to make best use of those resources by greater efficiency," he said.

Legislative change

None of the above changes require legislation. However, Sir Brian did identify some potential changes to the system that were outside of the 'Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings Review.' One example was deciding whether trials by jury were appropriate, a change that has previously been discussed and put forward as one which would provide a more coherent system of criminal justice. Sir Brian did not make any specific recommendations in this area; instead, he says, they are for parliament to decide.

The president of the Queen's Bench Division said the changes recommended are all designed to streamline the way the investigation and prosecution of crime is approached without ever losing sight of the interests of justice.

"As a society," he said, "it remains essential that we retain high quality lawyers to carry out publicly-funded work. A more efficient system overall will allow all those involved in criminal justice to use their time productively with fewer hours wasted dealing with bureaucracy and less time lost through unnecessary delay."

Commenting on the review, Law Society president Andrew Caplen said: "We welcome this report and will be looking at the detail. Many of the recommendations are consistent with our members' views, which formed the basis of the Law Society’s submissions.

"Whilst these changes should lead to significant savings to the public purse in the medium-term from all parts of the criminal justice system, there is no evidence that the proposed efficiencies - if achieved - will result in savings that would justify the further proposed cut in legal aid rates. All stakeholders will need to make changes to ensure these improvements happen. Continuing with the proposed second legal aid fee cut will inhibit the defence community's ability to make such changes, and may put at risk the savings for all parties in the system."

The Society also supports the principles that underpin the ‘Transforming Summary Justice’ initiative and agree that transitional funding should be available to the Crown Prosecution Service and HM Courts and Tribunal Service

Caplen continued: "We support the idea behind a national Guilty Plea Scheme but we are concerned that the timing of the proposed preliminary hearing will not allow for effective case management at that stage. We do not agree that jury trial should be restricted."

The full review can be found here.

Laura Clenshaw is managing editor of Solicitors Journal

editorial@solicitorsjournal.co.uk