Leveson Review demands investment in criminal courts

The first part of the much-anticipated Independent Review of the Criminal Courts published was published in July 2025. The report, chaired by Sir Brian Levison considers two key themes – reform and efficiency. Part I, titled the Policy Review, considered long-term reforms to the set up of the criminal courts which, on the whole, would require primary legislation to implement. Part II, which is due for publication later in the year and titled Efficiency Review will consider how the Courts may operate as efficiently as possible and aims to include the consideration of the processes of partner agencies where they impact the criminal courts.

The most refreshing thing to come out of Part I is the clear recognition that there must be an increase in investment in the system for any of the proposed changes to have a meaningful impact. Importantly, this recognition extends beyond the Crown Court’s infrastructure itself and emphasises the need for increased investment for those working with it.

In a system that is breaking under the weight of an unprecedented court back-log, and the much-publicised lack of necessary funding, Sir Brian Leveson has placed a clear emphasis on the fact that there needs to be a concerted effort to reduce the number of cases that are being added on a daily basis. In addition, he notes that there needs to be a thorough review of cases that have already found themselves within the court system. Whilst this may seem counter-productive (to review each case already there will take some time) at first sight, it does make sense in the longer term. 

Investment and Alternatives to Prosecution

Now, more than ever, public interest in proceeding with any prosecution should be justified against a wider range of criteria.  In lower-level offences, consideration should be given to whether an alternative outcome to a conviction would be more appropriate. Many might ask what impact this will have on the victims of crime and in my experience, in many cases an alternative outcome may be preferable. Victims, sometimes and very much depends on a case-by-case basis, are happier with simply an apology or compensation, particularly where it would avoid them having to wait years for a case to reach conclusion. They also often find themselves relieved to no longer have the dreaded high anxiety wait to finally give evidence at trial. Alternative resolutions should be openly, and respectfully, discussed between prosecution and defence representatives and consideration given to whether a case can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, without the need for a trial. 

However, in a climate where the police, CPS and defence solicitors find themselves at full capacity, and severely under-remunerated, it can often be difficult to encourage that level of engagement at the early stages of a case. All too often we see cases being reviewed and discontinued by the CPS at the door of the court which only exacerbates the situation. As Sir Leveson quite fairly recognises in this report, this takes place at the same time as defence solicitors are penalised financially if a defendant pleads guilty at an early stage of a case. The latter is regardless of how many hours and how much work may have been required to review the case in question and provide the proper legal advice. It is often forgotten that pre-charge defence solicitors are paid only for their time spent physically in a police station, and that the vast majority of any pre-charge engagement undertaken in order to prevent a case proceeding to prosecution is in fact done on a pro-bono basis. 

Pressure on the Magistrates’ Courts

The report also puts a clear focus on the need to divert cases away from the Crown Court by keeping them in the Magistrates Court. This assumes that our Magistrates Courts have the capacity to cope with this increased level of work. In his report, Sir Leveson points to the fact that the Magistrates Courts already handle 90% of criminal cases and as defence practitioners we frequently face turning up at court for a Magistrates trial only to be told on the day itself that it cannot take place due to either a lack of court time or lack of staff – a hugely frustrating and stress inducing scenario for all involved. It is worth mentioning that whilst the Crown Court delays are unprecedented, our Magistrates Courts are already stretched to capacity and adding to that burden presents a serious risk of simply shifting the problem rather than solving it. 

If the workload of the Magistrates Court is to increase, consideration should be given to where some of that burden may be reduced by streamlining in other areas. For example, it would be interesting to know how much court time is taken up with sending hearings for indictable only offences (where it is inevitable that the case will simply be sent to the Crown Court for trial) and whether any thought could be given to adopting an administrative process for such hearings. The Magistrates Courts have already adopted an administrative process for low level driving offences known as the Single Justice Notice Procedure and this could be expanded to other low-level offences which would help stem some of that burden.  

The suggestion in the report to encourage defendants who intend on pleading guilty to do so at the earliest opportunity, is another interesting and helpful consideration. In particular the suggestion that greater use should be made of advance sentencing indications known as the Goodyear Indications. Already, we find that Judges will frequently indicate at Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings that a guilty plea at this stage would attract ‘significant credit’. However, the reality is that all a defendant wants to know is whether or not that guilty plea will result in them avoiding a custodial sentence. If they were to secure a clear indication in that regard at a very early stage of a case, this would no doubt have a significant impact on an early guilty plea. With this, though comes the obvious risk that defendants may end up pleading guilty to offences purely to mitigate their risk of custody rather than because they are guilty, or when in fact they are not guilty in law. 

The suggestion that some cases could be tried without a Jury has raised significant debate and taken up many column inches and news airtime. This is something which has deeply troubled those of us within the profession. There are many risks involved in taking away one of the fundamental pillars of our criminal justice system. The right to be tried by a jury of your peers has been enshrined into our legal system for hundreds of years, and with good reason.  Further, we should question what practical effect this would have in reality on helping to reduce the Crown Court backlog. Whilst I acknowledge that doing so would no doubt go some way to reducing the length of some of the more complex fraud trials, the undeniable truth is that to ensure fairness in a Judge-only trial, the sitting Judge would still need to be presented with the same amount of evidence that a Jury would. 

Whilst much of Part I has been a long (!) but refreshing read, I do have some legitimate concerns primarily the suggestion that jury trials may be on notice. Arguably, we would need to find an alternative way of reducing the length of these trials rather than casting juries aside. This would be fundamentally important for us in order to maintain the high level of integrity for which our criminal justice system is celebrated and revered around the world.