header-logo header-logo

Judge or jury?

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll