1st Report - Courts and Tribunals Bill

Sir Brian Leveson was commissioned by the government to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts in response to the deepening crisis in the Crown Court. The open caseload has reached a record high of over 80,000 outstanding cases … Read more Sir Brian Leveson was commissioned by the government to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts in response to the deepening crisis in the Crown Court. The open caseload has reached a record high of over 80,000 outstanding cases as of December 2025, with some trials now listed as far ahead as 2030. The government should have produced a formal response to Part 1 of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts either prior to or at the same time as the publication of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. The absence of a formal response has inhibited scrutiny of the government’s proposals to reform the criminal courts. (Conclusion, Paragraph 6) Show less

View Details →

If the right to elect is removed, the government must ensure that the allocation criteria applied by the magistrates’ court are sufficiently flexible to enable the court to consider whether the circumstances of a case warrant a Crown Court trial. … Read more If the right to elect is removed, the government must ensure that the allocation criteria applied by the magistrates’ court are sufficiently flexible to enable the court to consider whether the circumstances of a case warrant a Crown Court trial. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24) Show less

View Details →

The government must put forward a plan to significantly increase the number of salaried district judges in the magistrates’ court. The Government must also ensure that the pay of legal advisers is matched with comparable legal roles in the public … Read more The government must put forward a plan to significantly increase the number of salaried district judges in the magistrates’ court. The Government must also ensure that the pay of legal advisers is matched with comparable legal roles in the public sector. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43) Show less

View Details →

Given proposals to increase the complexity and seriousness of the magistrates’ courts’ caseload, the government should consider delaying the introduction of any changes to the appeals process. A delay would enable the government to assess the impact of the reforms … Read more Given proposals to increase the complexity and seriousness of the magistrates’ courts’ caseload, the government should consider delaying the introduction of any changes to the appeals process. A delay would enable the government to assess the impact of the reforms on the magistrates’ court and to assess whether they had led to an increase in the number of appeals. A delay would also allow the government to take account of the Law Commission’s forthcoming report on criminal appeals. Finally, any 90 changes to magistrates’ appeals should only be introduced once recording of all magistrates’ court proceedings has been introduced and is proven to be operating effectively. (Recommendation, Paragraph 72) Show less

View Details →

The government should set out its justification for the introduction of loss of time orders and explain why it considers them necessary to deter unmeritorious appeals, given that a permission stage is being introduced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78)

View Details →

The government must set out in detail how it expects to introduce audio recording across the magistrates’ court estate and how recordings will be stored, accessed and transcribed to demonstrate that the necessary systems will be fully operational before the … Read more The government must set out in detail how it expects to introduce audio recording across the magistrates’ court estate and how recordings will be stored, accessed and transcribed to demonstrate that the necessary systems will be fully operational before the provisions come into force. The government must also set out precise costings for the introduction and maintenance of audio recording in the magistrates’ court. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85) Show less

View Details →

The government must clarify whether it intends to require magistrates to give detailed written reasons for their decisions for the purpose of facilitating appeals. If so, the government should specify the extent of the reasons required and set out the … Read more The government must clarify whether it intends to require magistrates to give detailed written reasons for their decisions for the purpose of facilitating appeals. If so, the government should specify the extent of the reasons required and set out the training and resources allocated to magistrates to support this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 87) Show less

View Details →

The government must set out its basis for departing from Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation that magistrates should continue to sit alongside judges in appeals. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93)

View Details →

The government must set out what specific consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed reforms on children and young people tried in the youth court. In particular, the government must set out how it intends to mitigate … Read more The government must set out what specific consideration has been given to the impact of the proposed reforms on children and young people tried in the youth court. In particular, the government must set out how it intends to mitigate the risk of a child or young person turning 18 during the appeals process. (Recommendation, Paragraph 100) Show less

View Details →

While we welcome the minister’s stated intention to ensure that legal aid provision is “as broad as it needs to be”, we are concerned that the government intends to wait until after the bill has passed before determining whether changes … Read more While we welcome the minister’s stated intention to ensure that legal aid provision is “as broad as it needs to be”, we are concerned that the government intends to wait until after the bill has passed before determining whether changes to legal aid provision are required. The government has not confirmed whether it intends to review criminal legal aid eligibility thresholds, nor whether it accepts Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation that those thresholds should be increased. The government must clarify its position on both issues and set out how it will ensure that defendants are not unfairly disadvantaged in accessing appeal rights as a result of these reforms before the bill is enacted. (Recommendation, Paragraph 103) 92 The Crown Court Show less

View Details →

The government must consider whether relying on the three-year sentence threshold is the right approach to allocating either-way cases to judge only trial in the Crown Court. In particular, the government must ensure alternative criteria are included to enable the … Read more The government must consider whether relying on the three-year sentence threshold is the right approach to allocating either-way cases to judge only trial in the Crown Court. In particular, the government must ensure alternative criteria are included to enable the judge responsible for allocation to decide that a case with a likely sentence of three years or less should be tried by a jury. (Recommendation, Paragraph 122) Show less

View Details →

The government must ensure that the bill clarifies beyond doubt whether allocation decisions in the Crown Court can be subject to judicial review. (Recommendation, Paragraph 124)

View Details →

The government must work with the judiciary to produce an estimate of the amount of judicial time that will be needed to produce judgments in all judge only trials in the Crown Court each year. (Recommendation, Paragraph 152)

View Details →

The predicted 20% time saving of judge only trials compared to jury trials has played a significant role in the public debate on the bill. In our view, the government should have put forward a more concrete evidential basis for … Read more The predicted 20% time saving of judge only trials compared to jury trials has played a significant role in the public debate on the bill. In our view, the government should have put forward a more concrete evidential basis for the time-saving benefits of judge only trials alongside the bill. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157) Show less

View Details →

The Government must include a requirement in the bill that the department review the first year of the operation of judge only trials in the Crown Court. (Recommendation, Paragraph 159) 95 Equality

View Details →

The government must amend the legal aid means test in the magistrates’ court so that anyone charged with an either-way offence with the possibility of a sentence of 12 months or more in custody is subject to the same threshold … Read more The government must amend the legal aid means test in the magistrates’ court so that anyone charged with an either-way offence with the possibility of a sentence of 12 months or more in custody is subject to the same threshold that would apply if the case were tried in the Crown Court. The government must ensure that recommendations in the Means Test Review to change the legal aid thresholds in the magistrates’ court are implemented before the provisions in the Bill are brought into force. The government must provide a detailed timeline for when the relevant changes to legal aid eligibility will be made. (Recommendation, Paragraph 167) Show less

View Details →

The government must ensure that any new processes for recruiting magistrates focus on recruiting groups that are currently not well represented in the magistracy. (Recommendation, Paragraph 173)

View Details →

We recommend that the government works with the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission to develop and formalise clearer progression routes from magistrates’ court and other lower courts and tribunals into the senior judiciary. The government must set itself a … Read more We recommend that the government works with the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission to develop and formalise clearer progression routes from magistrates’ court and other lower courts and tribunals into the senior judiciary. The government must set itself a clear, national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by Show less

View Details →

Given the constitutional significance of the bill, it would have been proportionate for the government to have facilitated more meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, in particular, by allowing the Justice Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. The Impact Assessment states that the provisions in the bill will not be implemented until March 2028 …

View Details →

The removal of the right to elect for Crown Court trial will have a major impact on the allocation of cases between the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court. We are concerned by the lack of reliable data on which to base an estimate of the number of cases that …

View Details →

The removal of the right to elect for Crown Court trial will make the allocation process less flexible. The allocation of cases will only be determined by the court’s application of the relevant legislative provisions and sentencing guidelines. In our view it is important for the magistrates’ court to be …

View Details →

Clause 6 is one of the most radical measures proposed in the bill. It would give the power to the government to double the sentencing powers of magistrates from the current maximum of 12 months to 24 months through a statutory instrument with limited parliamentary oversight. The government has presented …

View Details →

We can see why the ability to vary magistrates’ sentencing powers according to capacity pressures might be attractive to the government. However, frequent changes to those powers are unlikely to assist magistrates in making consistent and effective allocation decisions. Further, it is possible that a future government might seek to …

View Details →

The power in clause 6 must be amended to ensure it contains adequate safeguards. The power must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and must also be limited so that it can only be used if the 89 relevant minister considers that it is necessary to address one of …

View Details →

We are not convinced that the capacity of the magistrates’ court can be expanded sufficiently to deal with the potential increases in workload that could result from the changes in the bill. It seems unrealistic to propose that 7,000 magistrates can be recruited in three years and that there will …

View Details →

The Ministry of Justice and HMCTS must publish quarterly statistics on magistrate recruitment, aligned with reporting to the Justice Performance Board. (Recommendation, Paragraph 44) Appeals from the magistrates’ court

View Details →

Appeals from the magistrates’ court represent a small and declining proportion of overall Crown Court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates’ court decisions appealed in 2025. The Ministry of Justice’s own data does not support the premise that appeals make a material contribution to the Crown Court backlog, and we …

View Details →

Evidence we received indicates that loss of time orders disproportionately affects those serving short custodial sentences and discourages otherwise meritorious appeals. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

View Details →

Audio recording of magistrates’ court proceedings will require significant investment in infrastructure, secure storage systems and transcription. Based on recent experience, we are sceptical that HMCTS will be able to ensure that all magistrates’ courts can be readily equipped with the necessary facilities prior to the commencement of the bill. …

View Details →

The shift away from appeal by way of rehearing to review will require magistrates to provide more detailed reasons for their decisions and legal advisers to provide robust written advice to withstand judicial scrutiny on appeal. As Sir Brian Leveson himself observed in his 2015 Review, if reasons provided by …

View Details →

Sir Brian considered and rejected judge-alone appeals, noting in particular the value of magistrates’ involvement in appeals against sentence and exercises of discretion. The government has not given any explanation for this departure or cited evidence that the participation of magistrates in appeal hearings contributes to delays. (Conclusion, Paragraph 92) …

View Details →

The youth court occupies a distinct position within the magistrates’ court system, dealing with serious cases involving some of the most vulnerable defendants in the criminal justice system. As 90% of children and young people are tried in the youth courts, any reforms to the magistrates’ court appeal process are …

View Details →

The government has acknowledged that, as more cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, a greater proportion of defendants are likely to be ineligible for criminal legal aid than would have been had their case been heard in the Crown Court. It therefore follows that more defendants will be …

View Details →

The evidence submitted to the Committee indicates that the allocation process in the Crown Court could consume a significant amount of court time and judicial resource. Given that the aim of the bill is to save time in the Crown Court, it is troubling that the provisions on allocation will …

View Details →

The sole reliance on using the likely length of sentence to determine allocation to the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD) will cause problems. A defendant with several previous convictions is more likely to receive a jury trial than a defendant without any. Children are less likely than adults to receive …

View Details →

Sir Brian Leveson originally proposed the three-year threshold alongside his recommendation for magistrates’ sentencing powers to be fixed at 12 months. If the maximum is increased to 24 months, cases of up to two and a half years could be retained by the magistrates’ court, which would appear to leave …

View Details →

The evidence received suggests that a system of judge only trials is likely to be fairer and more efficient if defendants can elect for judge only trials. Although this would be in tension with the government’s view that only the courts should decide on allocation, there is merit to considering …

View Details →

There are likely to be unintended policy consequences that flow from the three-year threshold. For example, when the government is deciding on the proposed statutory maximum custodial sentence for a new criminal offence, it is possible that it may be influenced by the three-year threshold so as to ensure that …

View Details →

The determination whether to allocate an either-way case to the Crown Court Bench division will have significant implications for the defendant and everyone else involved in the case. The determination will be based on an early assessment of the circumstances of a case and may, in some situations, involve complex …

View Details →

The bill should be amended so that cases involving child defendants cannot be allocated to the Crown Court Bench Division. (Recommendation, Paragraph 125)

View Details →

We are concerned by the potential complexity of the framework for the reallocation of cases in clause 3 of the bill. Some of the complexity appears to stem from the bill’s approach to allocation. If the Crown Court has more discretion to decide when a case should be allocated to …

View Details →

We accept that the new arrangements should apply to defendants who are yet to be arraigned in the Crown Court. However, in our view, it is unfair to reallocate those cases that have already had their Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing and are expecting to face a jury trial. (Conclusion, …

View Details →

The provisions on judge only trials must only apply to cases yet to be arraigned on or after the day on which they are brought into force. (Recommendation, Paragraph 135)

View Details →

The definition of complex and lengthy cases in clause 4 leaves open a number of important questions that the courts will have to resolve. For example, what level of complexity will be deemed inappropriate for trial by jury, and how long is too long for a trial to be conducted …

View Details →

Given the difficulty of defining these concepts, in our view, it should be possible to appeal, or challenge by way of judicial review, the decision to make, or not make, an order that a complex and lengthy case should not be conducted with a jury. (Recommendation, Paragraph 142)

View Details →

The power in Schedule 1 could be used by a future government to add offences which go beyond the dishonesty offences currently listed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 143)

View Details →

The power to add offences to Schedule 1 should be amended to limit the scope of the power. The power should be limited so that only dishonesty offences can be added to Schedule 1. (Recommendation, Paragraph 144)

View Details →

Reasoned judgments in the Crown Court will help to make criminal courts more transparent. We accept that in some cases the requirement will not be unduly onerous, but there are likely to be cases where the need to provide a judgment will be an additional burden for the judge that …

View Details →

It is plausible that judge only trials will prove to be more efficient than jury trials, as the evidence shows they are in Canada. However, to ensure that their operation enhances the overall efficiency of the criminal courts, their introduction must be carefully managed to avoid introducing unnecessary complexity that …

View Details →

If the magistrates’ court is given the power to hand down sentences of up to 24 months, the discrepancy in the legal aid thresholds between the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court will need to be reformed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 166)

View Details →

We welcome improvements to the diversity of the magistracy made since the Lammy Review in 2017. We are, however, concerned that the removal of the right to elect has the potential to increase mistrust in the criminal justice system among the Black community. (Conclusion, Paragraph 172)

View Details →

The fact that only 1% of Crown Court judges are Black and that this has not changed since 2015 is shocking. In our view, the lack of progress on the number of Black judges in the Crown Court is evidence that something is seriously wrong with the process of appointing …

View Details →