Latest news with #SirBrianLeveson
Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
Radical measures are vital to avoid collapse of justice system
Since the Covid-19 pandemic, crown courts have been in an ever-worsening crisis, buckling under the weight of an enormous backlog of cases. The Ministry of Justice recently announced that it has soared to 77,000, well over double the level in 2019. And it is set to soar further, with some experts predicting it will rise above 100,000. One of the principal ingredients of justice, timeliness, is being lost: hundreds of trials have been delayed until 2029. The viability of the criminal justice system is under threat. The courts system is close to collapse. Something has to give. Enter Sir Brian Leveson, a former Court of Appeal judge, who was tasked by the government with finding ways to tackle the courts crisis. Sir Brian's proposals, published on Wednesday, are nothing if not radical. They include the possible abolition of juries for a host of offences, including assault, harassment and complex fraud cases. He has also mooted the increased use of other forms of remedy such as cautions to divert cases away from the courts. Sir Brian admits that he does not 'rejoice' in the eye-catching proposal to remove juries in some instances but argues that his plan is 'absolutely essential' if the courts system is to avoid collapse. Even if his proposals are adopted, he warns that the backlog will persist for five years. Were juries to be cut out from some trials, it would be the most significant shake-up of the criminal justice system in England and Wales in a century. When considering this, it is worth noting that the vast majority of criminal cases are already heard by magistrates, something that is not widely recognised. There is a balance to strike in order to maintain public confidence. Juries have long been regarded as 'the jewel in the crown' of British justice, an essential right in serious cases. Yet this expectation must be balanced against the chaos afflicting the system: Sir Brian emphasises that delay lessens the chance of a fair trial. It is welcome to see that the proposals echo the recent findings of The Times Crime and Justice Commission, which call for a new type of intermediate court to clear the backlog. Sir Brian's suggestion that a judge and two magistrates preside over hearings of less serious offences mirrors one of the commission's proposals. Many trials could be speeded up from several days to a few hours, creating more capacity in court for jury hearings. This new court would focus on cases involving a maximum sentence of two years, lower level crimes such as theft, criminal damage and some forms of assault. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, should act swiftly on this proposal. Some lawyers believe the criminal justice system was mishandled during the pandemic. It certainly would have been easier to scrap juries entirely but ministers made the morally correct decision to keep them despite the backlog created. That decision also contributed to the prison capacity crisis, thanks to 17,000-odd people in England and Wales still languishing on remand. Ms Mahmood should be aware that in the immediate term, any shift towards more magistrate cases may witness a brief rise in pressure on the prison system as cases are rapidly processed by the courts. Unsurprisingly, these reforms have not been universally welcomed by the legal profession. Some lawyers fear they mark a clear shift away from the ancient tradition of jury trial — the first such hearing in England took place more than 800 years ago. These fears must be allayed. Despite such challenges, this country's justice system retains the respect of much of the world. It faces acute pressures but they must be placed in a broader context. Curtailing a fundamental right in order to deal with short-term capacity issues is one thing. But it would be a mistake if Sir Brian's proposals marked the beginning of the decline of the jury system. Men and women in serious cases should have the right to be tried by their peers.
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on restricting trial by jury: the ugly face of justice tailored to tight budgets
Only a tiny minority of criminal cases in England and Wales are decided by a jury – as few as 1%, once guilty pleas and judge-directed acquittals are taken into account. There are democracies where jury trial is rarer still. That is relevant context for the recommendation, published on Wednesday in an independent review of the criminal courts, that more cases be heard by magistrates. There are also good reasons why the right to be judged by one's peers is deemed a foundational principle of justice and an insurance against prejudice and capricious power. This, too, is relevant context. Sir Brian Leveson, a former judge, recognises the sensitivity around any restriction on jury trial. But he weighs it against 'the real risk of total system collapse in the near future'. He argues that the backlog of unheard crown court cases – currently about 77,000 – betrays the victims of crime, leaves witnesses and defendants in limbo and corrodes faith in the whole apparatus of justice. To get the system back on track, Sir Brian makes 45 recommendations, covering a range of sentencing and divisions of labour between police, magistrates and crown courts. The most controversial measure, if adopted by the government, is sure to be ending the right to be tried in front of a jury for offences that carry a maximum sentence of two years or fewer. The report also proposes that judges alone should decide complex fraud cases that notoriously tax jurors' time and capacity to absorb highly technical testimony. Sir Brian is candid in acknowledging that the changes are not ideal. They express an invidious choice between unpalatable compromise and an intolerable status quo, tending towards calamity. He makes a case for reform irrespective of the wider fiscal constraints facing the government. But he notes also that the terms of reference for his inquiry sought recommendations that 'take account of the likely operational and financial context at the time that they may be considered and implemented'. In other words, it is a question of finding the least worst solution when justice must be tailored to a tight budget. This is a crisis of long gestation. The justice department was among those 'unprotected' portfolios that bore a disproportionate burden of austerity when George Osborne was chancellor. The court system is also still struggling to recover from extreme disruption during the Covid pandemic. Labour has taken steps to ease the case backlog, funding more sitting days and appointing judges. But the rate of improvement is insufficient given the scale of the problem, hence the review and the drastic measures it proposes. Whether curtailment of jury trial is a price worth paying to avert the worst-case scenario is a nasty question that only arises because adequately funded reform is not on the table. This has become a painfully familiar political conundrum for Labour. The government was elected to fix a badly broken state, but on a manifesto that precluded most of the Treasury revenue-raising measures that might expedite tangible change. As a result 'reform' has become a euphemism for shrinking services and withdrawing entitlements. When the time comes, ministers might feel compelled by fiscal circumstance to accept Sir Brian's recommendations. If so, they will struggle to make a compelling case for a policy that so obviously compromises judicial principle for want of a long-term, better-funded plan.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
We must retain the right to trial by jury
The old legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied has rarely been more appropriate than it is today. The worsening backlog in the courts means cases are taking years to come to trial. This leaves alleged miscreants in limbo either on extended bail or periods of custodial remand which is itself an affront to justice. It also means that victims are left waiting too long for punishments to be meted out for the offences against them. Close to 77,000 cases are pending in the Crown Court in England and Wales. A review by Sir Brian Leveson, a former High Court judge, has proposed that in order to clear the backlog, thousands of cases that would normally be heard in front of a jury should be decided by judges alone. He said that without a fundamental reform the system faced total collapse. Sir Brian also called for more out of court settlements, such as a greater use of cautions, and for some inmates to serve just a small part of the term handed down. There is unquestionably a crisis in the system but whether Sir Brian's proposed solutions are the right approach is another matter. There is a danger of replacing one injustice with another. Many thousands of so-called 'either way' cases are already heard by magistrates alone so there is no absolute requirement for juries. Nonetheless, to remove even more from the scrutiny of juries is to deny access to a cornerstone of English justice and should be resisted whatever the apparent logistical attraction. The ancient right, dating to Magna Carta, to be tried by one's peers should not lightly be discarded. Other remedies must be considered, including sitting throughout the summer rather than taking a two-month recess. How can that be justified in such a crisis is hard to understand. If the courts are full, cannot other public buildings be used as temporary venues in which judges and juries can sit? Why can't more retired judges, made to leave office aged 70, be recruited back to the colours? Should all judges and juries not sit around the clock until the backlog is cleared? Moreover, the suggestion that more crimes should be dealt with by a caution is to further diminish the importance of deterrence in our system, already undermined by reduced jail terms and early release. Most offences are committed by a small number of repeat felons. If they think they can get away with just a ticking-off they will not be dissuaded from a life of crime.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Police cautions should be removed from database sooner, says Leveson
Police should no longer be allowed to keep a record of people's cautions until they are 100 years old, a Government review has recommended. Sir Brian Leveson, a former appeal court judge who headed the review of the criminal courts, said the criminal records system needed to be reformed to recognise that people can be rehabilitated and should not face job discrimination as a result of past misdemeanours. Any caution remains on the police national computer until an offender reaches the age of 100, even if it is 'spent'. Details can be requested by employers and have to be declared for visa travel to certain countries including the US, China and many Middle Eastern states. Sir Brian said: 'I am keen to see that the impact [cautions and out of court resolutions] have on individuals' lives is proportionate to the offending.' It is one of 45 recommendations from his review, which was set up by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, to tackle record court backlogs and delays in justice for victims. As well as scrapping the automatic right to jury trials for thousands of defendants, Sir Brian has also proposed that police should make greater use of out of court resolutions such as cautions to divert offenders like thieves, thugs and drug addicts away from the courts. Sir Brian said this proposal would 'highlight the difficulty that individuals face in complying with their duties of disclosure of a criminal record in future employment and other applications'. Under current laws, cautions remain on a person's criminal record on the police national computer until they are 100 but become 'spent' after six years. This means they do not have to be automatically declared to employers through the disclosure and barring service. There are, however, exceptions for serious offences, and employers are entitled to ask about spent convictions for certain occupations and roles that involve working with vulnerable individuals or those in positions of trust. Sir Brian called for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 'to address the periods of time before cautions and convictions for low level offences become spent or protected effectively for all purposes and are therefore never disclosed on any criminal record check.' However, while backing the wiping of cautions from the police national computer (PNC), Sir Brian accepted there should remain exemptions for some offences such as sexual assaults. 'The disclosure system needs simplifying so that offenders and employers have clarity about what can be expected to be disclosed,' he said. 'I would, of course, recognise the importance of retaining information in relation to certain offences (such as sexual assault) which might be relevant to employment possibilities, and also of such information remaining on the PNC for intelligence purposes. 'The organisation Unlock [a charity founded by former prisoners] has called for a fundamental review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in recognition of the fact that the world has now radically changed since 1974. I would endorse such a review.' 'Total collapse of the system' In his 378-page report published on Wednesday, Sir Brian proposed changes at every stage of the process to prevent what he warned was the 'total collapse of the system' because of the backlogs. The number of outstanding cases has risen to a record 77,000, with trials delayed as far ahead as 2029. Sir Brian's biggest and most controversial reform is to the jury system where he proposed that anyone facing an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years in jail would lose their right to elect for a jury trial. Defendants for any offence apart from homicide will also be entitled to ask for a judge-only trial. He said defendants should receive a 40 per cent discount on their sentence if they pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, up from 33 per cent. It could mean a criminal facing a nominal 10 years in jail would serve just two years in prison. Ministry of Justice sources confirmed the proposals were being considered including on police cautions, with decisions on the Government's plans to be announced in the autumn.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How much can you claim on expenses from jury duty?
Trials by jury should be reduced and more cases resolved by judges only to ease the huge backlog of crown court hearings, a major new review has recommended. Former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson, chairman of the independent review of the criminal courts, said that 'fundamental' reforms to the court system are needed to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse'. It comes as the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Leveson's recommendations are hoped to save some 9,000 sitting days in crown courts each year by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases, and defendants would receive a 40% discount on their sentence if they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. Defendants in cases for offences including assault of an emergency worker, stalking and possessing an indecent photograph of a child would also no longer have the right to choose a jury trial. A new Crown Court Bench Division, made up of two magistrates and a judge, would have powers to deal with all either way offences such as fraud, child abduction, sexual assault and violent disorder. A judge would then decide whether a defendant's case would be sent to the new court, or to the crown court with a jury. Reacting to the recommendations, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told Times Radio on Wednesday that jury trials are 'always going to be an important part of the criminal justice system'. Chairman of the Commons' justice committee, Andy Slaughter, however warned it needs to be considered 'very carefully' before altering the system. The Labour MP said: 'Juries are central to our constitutional right to a fair trial. We should think very carefully before altering a system that has served us well for centuries. But that does not mean the ambit of the jury system can never change.' Jurors are able to claim expenses to offset any financial impacts of carrying out jury service. For the first 10 days, you can claim up to £64.95 per day for loss of earnings if you're in court for more than four hours, or £32.47 for less. After 10 days, this increases to £129.91 per day for over four hours, or £64.95 for less. Travel expenses, such as standard-class public transport fares or 31.4p per mile for driving, are covered – but you will need to provide receipts. A daily food and drink allowance of up to £5.71 is available if you're at court for over five hours. Childcare or care for dependants can also be claimed, but total claims, including loss of earnings, are capped at the daily maximum. Self-employed jurors need to provide evidence like tax returns. Claims must be submitted with receipts, typically within 14 days of service completion, using forms provided by the court. Payments are usually processed within 7-10 days. If you receive benefits you should show your jury summons to your benefit office or work coach as soon as you get it. Financial support and benefits, such as universal credit, will continue to be be paid for the first eight weeks. After that, the court will give you a loss of earnings form to give to your benefit office or work coach. While jury duty is mandatory, some people are exempt due to specific circumstances or jobs. In England and Wales, exemptions may be granted for serious illness or disability, full-time caregiving for someone with a serious illness or disability, or being a new parent unable to serve within the next 12 months. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, practising registered nurses and midwives can be excused if they provide evidence. Those currently on bail, with prior prison sentences of five years or more, or in certain professions like law enforcement may be ineligible. Jury duty can be deferred once within a 12-month period for reasons like booked holidays, exams, or significant business impact, but you must provide alternative dates. Failure to attend without a valid exemption can result in a £1,000 fine.
