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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
back-to-top-scroll