header-logo header-logo

08 August 2025 / Lloyd Firth
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Judge or jury?

227497
The Leveson review proposes mandatory judge-alone trials in serious & complex fraud cases: Lloyd Firth argues this runs counter to the interests of justice

Part 1 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, was published in July. Leveson was tasked by the Ministry of Justice with conducting a wide-ranging review of the criminal court system. Part 1 focuses on reform and proposes various radical changes to criminal procedure and the court system in response to the current criminal justice crisis, with over 77,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court and some trials listed for 2029.

This article focuses on Recommendation 44: that serious and complex fraud cases (defined by their hidden dishonesty or complexity that is outside the general public’s understanding) should be tried by a judge alone. Leveson recommends that the allocation decision be made by a judge at a preparatory hearing, effectively removing the right to jury trial for serious and complex fraud cases.

Less than persuasive?

Proposals for varying the right

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll