Courts and Tribunals Bill

Our view

We recognise the need for radical change in our criminal justice system to reduce backlogs and properly address the problem of justice delayed by the effects of chronic government underfunding and piecemeal change.

A whole system approach is needed to improve efficiency and restore confidence in the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

The government must implement a package of reforms that will reduce the backlogs right across the system without damaging fairness – restoring to health this ailing service that is vital for our society.

This must include meeting Sir Brian Leveson’s call for ‘sustained and strategic investment in services, people, infrastructure and technology’.

This bill addresses only a small part of Sir Brian’s proposals, and the government has not yet responded to all of his recommendations from the independent review.

How well the Bill works to reduce the backlogs will depend on the government’s response to all the recommendations.

Jury trials

We oppose the restrictions on jury trials.

The government’s restrictions on jury trials go much further than Sir Brian’s.

They are unlikely to have a significant effect on the overall backlogs, and would seriously damage fairness and trust in our criminal justice system.

Even Sir Brian’s more limited proposals should be tested by a pilot to thoroughly and independently evaluate them against the objectives of ensuring trials are fair and effective in reducing the backlogs.

• Fairness and trust – the government’s proposals risk fundamentally altering the balance of fairness in our criminal justice system
• Limited efficiency gains – greater complexity and administrative burdens will limit time saving
• Insufficient modelling – the government has not fully explained the modelling which underpins the estimated net benefits
• Retrospective application – it’s unfair that defendants who have already elected for a jury trial under existing rules would have that choice taken away
• Legal aid implications – a large volume of cases in the magistrates’ courts will result in lower remuneration for criminal legal aid solicitors, putting further pressure on fragile legal aid firms
• Legal aid means test – there is a more generous threshold for legal aid in the Crown Court than in the magistrartes’. Unless are aligned, there would be more unrepresented defendants in the magistrates’ courts
• Application to child defendants – issues with proportionality and child-specific safeguards
• Fraud and financial offences without a jury – unlikely to have a significant effect on the backlogs and would erode the principle of open justice

Magistrates’ courts sentencing powers and right to appeal

The government is proposing to increase the volume of cases that magistrates can hear by:

• increasing the maximum custodial sentence magistrates’ courts can impose and
• restructuring the framework around the right to appeal

However, these changes have been proposed without enough evidence of them increasing magistrates’ court resourcing and capacity.

In this context, restricting a defendant's appeal routes increases the likelihood that people will receive longer custodial sentences with fewer safeguards or opportunities to rectify wrongful convictions.

Defendants’ ability to appeal magistrates’ court conviction sentences would be restricted by introducing a leave requirement.

A vital safeguard currently allows automatic appeals, but is used in only 0.4% of cases, and which overturn magistrates’ decisions in 41–44%.

The current simple appeal route is important because a significant proportion of defendants in the magistrates’ court do not have a lawyer.