JUSTICE submits evidence to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts
In January 2025, JUSTICE submitted its response to the Call for Evidence for the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the “Review”).
The Review was commissioned to address the severe backlog crisis in the Crown Court. As of September 2024, there were over 73,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court – the highest figure ever on record. Sir Brian Leveson, Chair of the Review, has emphasised the need for “innovative solutions” to address the “very real difficulties facing the criminal justice system”.
JUSTICE recognises the urgent need to reduce the historic backlog, while firmly upholding the “fundamental and absolute” right to a fair trial. Efficiency and trial fairness are not mutually exclusive considerations; however, to the extent that they do conflict fairness must always take priority.
Our recommendations:
JUSTICE recommends several immediate improvements to optimise court time, including:
- Tackling delays caused by prison transport failures.
- Expediting or removing appropriate elements of the trial process, such as judges’ factual summing up in shorter trials which feature minimal live evidence.
- Improving early engagement and case management including: giving fuller details of the prosecution case to the defence earlier; facilitating thorough conferences prior to plea-hearings; and closer compliance with the Better Case Management Handbook.
- Enhancing electronic case management systems.
- Replacing the “warned list” – a system where cases are allocated a one or two-week period during which they may be called on any given day – with fixed trial listings.
JUSTICE supports proposals to increase Crown Court sitting days and physical courtroom space. Courtroom redesign also offers an opportunity for a long-overdue reassessment of dock usage to better align with the presumption of innocence.
JUSTICE’s submission also considers the proposals for long-term reform set out in the Review’s terms of reference. JUSTICE expresses reservations about increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, given the potential impact on fairness and racial disproportionality. We suggest limiting extended sentencing powers to District Judges to mitigate some of these issues.
Regarding the proposed intermediate court, JUSTICE underscores the importance of jury trials, particularly in relation to protecting the rights of racialised groups. Evidence suggests juries are more representative and may deliver less biased verdicts than lay magistrates. Unless the higher levels of disproportionality found in the magistrates’ court are addressed, we oppose any incursions into the availability of jury trial.
JUSTICE encourages an evidence-based approach to any reclassification of offences from either-way to summary only. In particular, there is a lack of robust evidence that lengthier custodial sentences achieve a deterrent effect or a reduction in reoffending. Moreover, the counter-productivity of short immediate custodial sentences and the significantly lower rates of reoffending associated with sentences served in the community are well established (see further our response to the Independent Sentencing Review).
The magistrates’ court has a rapidly increasing backlog of its own: at the end of September 2024 there were 327,228 open cases at the magistrates’ court, representing a 22% increase on the previous year. It is vital that the criminal justice system as a whole runs effectively, and that we do not attempt to solve the Crown Court backlog by simply ‘shifting’ the problem from one court to another.
——————————
Click here to read JUSTICE’s submission.
JUSTICE’s response builds on its previous work, including Remand Decision-making in the Magistrates’ Court, Tackling Racial Injustice, and A Parole System Fit for Purpose.
