His review, published this week, also suggests first court hearings after arrest be heard remotely. However, criminal defence solicitor and immediate past president of the Law Society Richard Atkinson warned both proposals ‘may compromise the fairness and safety of the justice system’.
Atkinson welcomed Sir Brian’s recommendation the government increase funding to boost recruitment and retention of defence solicitors. He expressed support for Sir Brian’s emphasis on dealing with cases at an early stage, increasing out-of-court disposals to reduce demand on the courts.
‘Sir Brian shows that sustained investment is needed throughout to resuscitate our criminal justice system,’ Atkinson said.
‘Anyone pretending the appalling backlogs can be fixed simply by unproven headline-grabbing measures, such as cutting jury trials or transferring cases from one overburdened court (the Crown Court) to another (the magistrates' court), is betraying the public. There are no corners left to cut.’
Simon Garrod, CILEX director of policy and public affairs, said CILEX has ‘serious concerns about the proposed increase in the use of remote hearings and the potential over-reliance on AI... the technology remains untested. When it comes to summaries of disclosure schedules, drafting witness statements, case file summaries and listing, there is a real danger that without proper safeguards we could see grave miscarriages of justice occur through evidential failures or failures to list important cases.’
The Lord Chancellor David Lammy’s proposal to reduce the number of jury trials is based on, but goes further than, recommendations in part one of Sir Brian’s review.
Bar Council chair Kirsty Brimelow KC said: ‘Sir Brian has recognised issues consistently raised by barristers including the late delivery of prisoners to court, courts sitting empty and lack of barristers to prosecute and defend.
‘Weeks of court time is wasted for complainants, witnesses and defendants, while an average of 64 Crown Court rooms go unused each day. It is therefore vital that time and resource is not further wasted on plans to restrict jury trials.’
