CILEX urges safeguards for courts

CILEX’s criminal law members broadly back the proposed courts, which would handle cases too serious for magistrates’ courts but not severe enough for the Crown Court, as recommended in Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts. However, concerns remain over whether this change will improve justice for victims. CILEX calls for “assurances and safeguards to ensure that access to justice is maintained or increased” and notes that jury trials “have been shown to provide a more equitable, and therefore more just, conviction.”

The institute stresses that magistrates sitting in intermediate courts with sentencing powers beyond two years should have suitable qualifications. “This qualification could involve having sat in the magistrates’ court previously for a number of years or having other legal experience such as being a paralegal or having undertaken a Level 3-6 legal qualification.” Additional investment is needed to recruit magistrates, whose numbers have halved since 2010/11, alongside proper funding for legal aid, courtrooms, and staff training.

CILEX practitioners do not expect intermediate courts to ease their workload and anticipate new challenges. Pilots and lead-in training before a full rollout would help “ensure that any impacts on already struggling practitioners and firms are minimised.” The organisation opposes extending magistrates’ sentencing powers, warning that it would simply shift cases from the Crown Court backlog to the magistrates’ backlog, to the detriment of both defendants and victims.

Beyond intermediate courts, CILEX highlights broader inefficiencies in the justice system, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining lawyers, inadequate funding for court facilities, and failures to enforce service level agreements with third-party providers. The number of daily court sitting hours has also dropped from 3.6 in 2017 to 2.8 in 2022, further reducing efficiency.

CILEX president Yanthé Richardson said: “Victims, defendants and all those working in the criminal justice system are currently being failed by systemic problems that have remained unresolved for years and have resulted in a backlog of over 73,000 cases. Cautiously, we support the creation of intermediate courts as a means of freeing up Crown Court time and bringing swifter justice for victims of crime but we are realistic about the challenges faced. Government will need to provide additional funding and resources if the benefits of this reform are to be realised.”