Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, which closed for responses this week, is exploring a range of proposals to fix the backlog of cases, including inserting an extra tier of court in between magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court.
However, the Bar Council mounted a robust defence of jury trials in its response to the review, warning that removing juries could have ‘some serious potential risks to public confidence in the administration of justice’. Moreover, introducing a ‘radical change’ such as an intermediate court would be a distraction in an already over-stretched system.
Bar Council Chair Barbara Mills KC said: ‘We have put forward alternative approaches to increase efficiency.
‘All of them should be tried before making structural changes that remove the right to trial by jury in some cases.’
The Bar Council proposes that first-time, low-level offenders—if they admit responsibility for what they have done—be diverted away from trial or prison. Instead, they should be ordered to pay compensation, engage with a victim or representative body, enter drug/alcohol rehabilitation, or engage in behaviour management or educational or vocational training.
This would reduce trial receipts (cases coming in), which the Bar Council argues is the real cause of the record high Crown Court backlog.
The Bar Council also recommended removing the cap on sitting days for judges and allowing all judges, including those who have retired but are younger than 75 years old, to sit as many days as they want.
It recommended offering credit of up to one third to defendants who plead guilty where their case has not reached trial, as a short-term measure, and extending the sentencing powers of district judges and deputy district judges in the magistrates’ court to two years’ imprisonment.
Greater use could be made of cautions and conditional cautions for low-level offending by those of good character, it suggested. Finally, if all medical practitioners agree a defendant is insane, a judge should be able to enter a verdict of insanity and recommend the appropriate disposal.
Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Our members, who see how the system operates from the police station right through to the prisons and probation, recognise this is a clear issue of supply and demand.
‘To cut the backlogs, the number of cases coming into the system must be reduced and capacity to deal with them increased. Any approach to the backlogs that doesn’t address this simple fact will fail.
‘Setting up an intermediate court will waste money, time and energy and will not tackle the problem of supply and demand.’
The Law Society’s response to the review sets out a series of alternative steps such as more remote hearings for certain stages, regular listings meetings and improved sharing of data.
However, CILEX president Yanthé Richardson said: ‘Cautiously, we support the creation of intermediate courts as a means of freeing up Crown Court time and bringing swifter justice for victims of crime but we are realistic about the challenges faced.
‘Government will need to provide additional funding and resources if the benefits of this reform are to be realised.’
CILEX also highlighted the benefits of jury trials which ‘have been shown to provide a more equitable, and therefore more just, conviction’, and opposed giving magistrates’ courts greater sentencing powers.
For more insight into the prospect of juryless trials, see NLJ's recent article 'Jury trials: in the dock'.
