header-logo header-logo

Support for intermediate court grows

16 April 2025
Issue: 8113 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
The former Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, former Lady Justice of Appeal Dame Anne Rafferty and former director of public prosecutions Max Hill KC have backed the creation of an intermediate criminal court consisting of a judge and two magistrates.

Introducing an intermediate tier and reclassifying some cases from triable-either-way to summary only is one of the more controversial ideas currently under consideration by Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, which is due to report in ‘late spring’.

It received the backing this week of the Times Crime and Justice Commission, which includes Lord Burnett, Dame Rafferty and Hill, Kingsley Napley partner Sandra Paul and criminal silk Jason Pitter KC, as well as senior police and justice specialists.

However, criminal lawyer George Kampanella, partner at Taylor Rose, said: ‘This approach could do more harm than good.

‘The right to a trial by one’s peers should remain a fundamental pillar of our justice system—a safeguard that must be preserved rather than diminished. The existing provision for trials without a jury in the Crown Court is intentionally reserved as a last resort for exceedingly complex cases where the intricacies simply exceed what a typical jury can reasonably navigate. This is a measured exception rather than standard practice.’

While the proposal might offer swifter justice in certain instances, ‘such reform risks normalising trials without the fundamental safeguard of a jury and should not become the standardised process of our system’.

Law Society president Richard Atkinson said: ‘Our criminal justice needs a whole-system approach, proper funding and resources to tackle court backlogs, reduce the volume of cases and ensure all our services can respond effectively so every single one of us can access swift justice.’

Ministry of Justice figures for October to December 2024, published last month, show the Crown Court backlog has reached a record 74,651 cases.

Issue: 8113 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll