On 12 December 2024, it was announced that the Lord Chancellor had asked Sir Brian Leveson (former judicial chief for criminal justice and former president of the Queen’s Bench Division) to lead an independent review of the Criminal Courts. Announcing Sir Brian’s review, the Lord Chancellor said: “The scale of the Crown Court crisis inherited by this government is unprecedented. Despite the efforts of judges, lawyers and court staff, we simply cannot continue with the status quo.”

Sir Brian stated he was “pleased to contribute to the important task of seeking to address the very real difficulties facing the criminal justice system. A challenge of this scale requires innovative solutions”. Sir Brian will be conducting the review alongside three appointed expert advisors, Shaun McNally (CEO of the Legal Aid Agency), Professor David Ormerod KC (Hon) (Former Criminal Law Commissioner for England and Wales) and Chris Mayer (Former CEO of HMCTS). Sir Brian is to report back by late Spring 2025 on options for long-term reform and further by Autum 2025 with findings on court efficiency.

Why now?

The backlog of cases at the Crown Court has been steadily increasing for a number of years alongside the rise in inefficiency of the courts resulting in considerable and growing delays. This ongoing rise has many contributing factors, including the pandemic, reduction in judicial sitting days, sale of the court estate and an escalation in cases being brought before the courts. It is also important to highlight the poor state of court buildings: in Birmingham’s Victoria Magistrates Court (the largest Magistrates’ Court in the UK) 4176 court rooms days were lost between May 2022 and January 2024 due to the failure of a fire alarm system, and on 9 January 2025 Nottingham Crown Court was forced to close due problems with its heating and fire alarm.

Accordingly, the review follows the publication of statistics on 12 December 2024, revealing that the Crown Court case backlog has reached its highest record at 73,105 cases, this is an increase of 10% from the 66,426 recorded towards the end of 2023 and nearly double the pre-pandemic figure of 38,016 in 2019. The Ministry of Justice cautioned that “even if the Crown Courts were to operate at maximum capacity, the backlog would continue to grow”. In addition, as highlighted by the DPP, Stephen Parkinson in his evidence to the Justice Select Committee in November 2024, the CPS expects a 10% increase in workload in 2025 due to the police sending more cases for charging decisions, which inevitable will lead to more cases in the Crown Courts.     

The review will consider two notions:

A. Longer-term options for criminal court reform, with the aim of reducing demand on the Crown Court by retaining more cases in the lower courts.

B. The efficiency and timeliness of processes through charge to conviction/acquittal.

Part A of the review will examine the potential introduction of an “intermediate court,” designed to handle cases that are too serious for the magistrates’ court but not serious enough for the Crown Court. In this model, a judge, supported by two magistrates, would oversee such cases. The review will also explore the possibility of granting magistrates’ greater authority to manage more complex cases. The Ministry of Justice provided an example, suggesting that reclassifying certain offences, such as the removal of an “either-way” offence, and extending magistrates’ sentencing powers could allow specific trials to be moved to magistrates’ courts. Cases that proceed in the magistrates’ court tend to be dealt with quicker than those in the Crown Court, primarily because they are less serious and, therefore, on average less complex, there is no jury, and sentencing limits which can sometimes encourage defendants to enter a guilty plea in a more timely manner. However, there is no evidence that more serious and complex cases would be concluded more speedily simply by being in a magistrates’ court.

Part B will further examine court procedures, exploring ways the process could be improved to enhance efficiency from charge to conviction or acquittal. This will not only look at the processes of the courts today but also those of partner agencies in the criminal justice system. It will also assess the effectiveness of previous recommendations, including those from Sir Brian’s 2015 review, Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings and the Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld in 2001, and how they have been implemented to maximise efficiency thus far. Additionally, the review will consider the prospect to build upon previous recommendations and implement a view on how and when technology could be used to improve the criminal court system, for example, through the use of Artificial intelligence.

Further, it is noted that the review should look to make other recommendations to tackle outstanding caseload that emerge as a result of reviewing the options and evidence. The review should not consider wider cross-system efficiencies where they do not relate to the efficiency of the courts and finally, it is vital that the review complements other work that is currently ongoing which aims to improve the criminal courts, for instance David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025, part of which is looking into “the role of incentives in sentence management” Coincidently, the Criminal Bar Association in its response to the Leveson report, thus far, has recommended maintaining the one-third discount beyond the first appearance, to encourage more guilty pleas at a later stage, instead of credit slowly tapering  off until the date of trial. We expect this will be looked at by both Leveson and Gauke during the course of their reviews.

Reactions across the Criminal Justice System

Although some bodies have shown their support for the new “intermediate court” system, it hasn’t come without some criticism. Mark Beattie, the national chair of the Magistrates Association stated, “These are sensible ideas and we look forward to working with our members and the review as it takes shape.” However, he still had concerns regarding the ongoing issues surrounding the funding of the criminal justice system.

The Law Society, however, have voiced their concerns surrounding the concept of the “intermediate court” stating that it is merely shifting the burden from one place to another, furthering their concerns on funding implications for the Judge and two magistrates compared to a 12-strong jury and how much time would actually be saved, and the funding arrangements surrounding legal aid.

The Chair of the Bar Council, Sam Townend KC welcomed the review saying “…The number of trials cancelled on the day because legal professionals are not available has risen dramatically since COVID. This lets victims, witnesses, defendants, professionals and the public down. If the backlog is to have any chance of being cleared, we need immediate, targeted and sustained investment.”

The Bar Council has stated they are “fully committed to engaging with the review process”, but this doesn’t come without concerns. It  says that urgent action from the government is needed now, rather than waiting until Spring 2025. The Bar Council went on to further recommend that Criminal courts should sit at maximum capacity and that a barrister needs to be included in the review group who are to assist Sir Brian Leveson.

Peters & Peters Response

We similarly welcome the review. In our experience, the system (and everyone within it) is doing its’ best to cope with the extent of the backlog, however, defendants, witnesses and complainants who are having to wait until 2027/2028 for trials are feeling the impact of systemic underfunding for the past 30 years. There needs to be transformative change in the justice system if it is to modernise and reflect society, delivering timely justice for all those involved.

Inevitably, the central issue will be funding and resourcing, of prosecution agencies, legal aid for defendants and the court system. This has been a central issue in all of the previous reviews and reports, and without appropriate funding change simply will be unable to occur.

It will also be interesting to consider Sir Brian’s report alongside Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences with the report “Disclosure in the Digital Age” having been submitted to the Home Secretary on 18 November 2024 containing 45 recommendations. The combination of recommendations across the reports may well provide the transformative change the system so desperately needs.