Independent review of the criminal courts

The UK government’s jury trial proposals go too far. 

Our criminal justice system is a crucial public service which for too long has been neglected, with victims, witnesses and defendants waiting years for justice.

The backlogs in our courts need to be tackled urgently and additional investment and resources and a commitment to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations are welcome.

However, the government’s proposals go too far in eroding the longstanding right to be judged by a jury of our own peers.

They allow a single judge to determine guilt in serious, lifechanging cases which could significantly affect people’s liberty and reputations.

Lasting reform requires sustained funding for court capacity and the legal profession, not rushed legislation that risks weakening confidence in the justice system.

Crown court sitting days

Lifting restrictions on Crown court sitting days and funding magistrates’ courts to their highest operational capacity is a step in the right direction.

There are several more steps the government needs to take to tackle the backlogs and ensure fair and swift justice is delivered.

This includes:

• taking action to reduce the number of cases coming into the system
• dealing with prisoners not being delivered to court on time
• sorting out court technology and infrastructure

Workforce capacity needs to be built by increasing solicitors’ fees and recruiting more legal advisers.

AI in the court system

We support modernising the justice system and adopting new technology, provided it enhances access to justice, is reliable and ensures fairness.

AI is not, however, a silver bullet to improve the justice system. It might help to ease some administrative pressures, but it is not a replacement for much-needed investment in the court estate and additional court staff.

Where liberty and reputation are at stake, the government must take particular care to safeguard people’s rights and ensure fair processes.

All decisions, especially those with serious consequences to people’s lives, must be made by humans.

Remote hearings

We agree there should be greater use of remote video hearings where appropriate.

First court hearings after arrest where people’s liberty is at stake would not be appropriate.

Part two – efficiency

Part two focuses on how the courts in England and Wales can operate efficiently.

Immediate past president of the Law Society and criminal defence solicitor, Richard Atkinson, said: “Sir Brian’s report demonstrates there is no single fix to bring our criminal justice system back from the brink and ensure swift and fair justice is delivered.

“Sir Brian shows that sustained investment is needed throughout to resuscitate our criminal justice system.

“Successive governments’ neglect and underfunding of this crucial public service have degraded every element of it, leaving many victims and defendants having to wait until 2030 for justice.

"Anyone pretending the appalling backlogs can be fixed simply by unproven headline-grabbing measures, such as cutting jury trials or transferring cases from one overburdened court (the Crown court) to another (the magistrates’ court), is betraying the public.

“There are no corners left to cut. The government must provide sustained investment in our crumbling courts and those who work in them, and robust evidence that its reforms will fix the backlogs. We urge the government to respond in full to all of Sir Brian’s recommendations and to show the joined-up leadership our criminal justice system needs to survive this crisis.

“Some short-term gains are possible through reducing demand on the system with increased out-of-court disposals, and we welcome the report’s emphasis on dealing with cases at an early stage.

“We also support its recommendations that the government should take positive steps to help recruit and retain defence solicitors, who are essential to the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.

“We disagree with some recommendations that may compromise the fairness and safety of the justice system, including providing legal advice by video link to people detained in police stations, and remote first court hearings after arrest where people’s liberty is at stake.”

Its proposals go beyond Leveson’s recommendations, and include:

• a new Bench Division – cases with a likely sentence of three years or less will be heard by a judge alone. This proposal is significantly different from Sir Brian’s, which would have seen magistrates as well as a judge deciding these cases.
• courts will have the power to decide where either-way cases are heard, removing defendants’ rights to choose jury trial in many serious offences
• jury trials will be preserved for the most serious, indictable-only cases, except lengthy fraud cases
• judge-only trials are to be introduced for particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences
• giving magistrates the power to hand down sentences of up to 18 months so more cases can be heard by magistrates. The government says this will free up Crown court time for the most serious offences, but it will add to magistrates’ growing backlogs.

The government has said the changes prioritise victims, but they are not addressing the fundamental problem that the justice system as a whole, and the criminal courts in particular, have been seriously underfunded by successive governments.

Justice spending is down 24% since 2007/08.

The government needs to address:

• courtrooms in disrepair
• chronic shortages of judges court staff, prosecutors and defence lawyers
• overcrowded prisons, and overstretched probation services

It also needs to increase the use of out of court disposals so fewer cases enter the criminal justice system.

Sustained funding and reform are needed across the criminal justice system, which is currently failing the public it serves.

We have asked the Ministry of Justice to share the modelling behind these proposals, and are working through what the proposals mean for solicitors, the rule of law and access to justice.

We will lobby ministers and, when legislation is published, will brief parliamentarians.

Only a whole-system approach can deliver lasting change and restore public confidence in access to justice.

The report echoes our call to divert more cases away from the courts.

Solicitors play a vital role in this. By providing early legal advice, they prevent cases from going to court when they don’t need to. This ultimately preserves capacity for the most serious offences.

The criminal courts are overstretched, facing increased demand with less resource, so we need bold system-wide solutions and new investment.

The proposed new division of the Crown court on its own will not solve the Crown court backlog.

Any ideas the government adopts must start with a commitment to long-term investment across the whole justice system.

Without it, the number of people stuck waiting years in legal limbo for their cases to be heard will continue to grow.

Download our full response: a criminal court system fit for public service (PDF 221 KB).

In February 2025, we responded to Sir Brian Leveson’s call for evidence.

We welcomed the review of the criminal courts and emphasised that the system must become more efficient and effective to:

• address the backlogs in both the Crown court and the magistrates’ courts
• restore the criminal justice system as an essential public service

We called for the funding cuts from the last decade and a half to be reversed to ensure access to justice and a good service for all court users.