4 days ago
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.
