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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll