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.