Government response
The government responded to the review on 2 December 2025.
About this review
Summary written by this siteIndependent review of the criminal courts system in England and Wales examining efficiency, case management, and the use of technology. Part 1 covered courts efficiency; Part 2 covered wider reforms.
Recommendations 45
Recommendation 1
I recommend that in all appropriate cases, when making a charging decision, police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service consider whether an Out of Court Resolution should be offered, including cautions, conditional cautions and other mechanisms for disposal.
Recommendation 2
I recommend that there be a standard approach to ensure better administration of Out of Court Resolutions with the standard set for training through the College of Policing and the Law Society. Better administration could be in the form of a scrutiny panel conducted by Local Criminal Justice Boards overseen by the Criminal Justice Board.
Recommendation 3
I recommend that the police and Crown Prosecution Service be encouraged to review appropriate cases in the open caseload to identify whether any of those cases could be suitable for the use of an Out of Court Resolution.
Recommendation 4
I recommend that the government undertakes an evaluation study in order to consider the use of digital tools that would help streamline effective use of Out of Court Resolutions across England and Wales.
Recommendation 5
I endorse the decision of the Home Office to amend Outcome 22 (police counting tool for Out of Court Resolutions) so that Out of Court Resolutions are recognised in the same way as other outcomes.
Recommendation 6
I recommend further investment in and greater use of rehabilitation programmes for drug and alcohol misuse and other health intervention programmes. This must adhere to a national framework to ensure consistent provision across the country.
Recommendation 7
I recommend that the government reviews the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in order to simplify and clarify the system to encourage the recognition of rehabilitation.
Recommendation 8
I recommend implementing Out of Court Resolutions alongside restorative justice for low-tier offences such as some thefts, public order offences and drug misuse.
Recommendation 9
I recommend an expansion of the Deferred Prosecution Scheme should be introduced by a legislative amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Recommendation 10
I recommend that the Crown Prosecution Service and Ministry of Justice agree eligible offences and criteria for Out of Court Resolutions in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Recommendation 11
I recommend that the College of Policing makes clear that Release under Investigation (RUI) is no longer appropriate and that the only mechanism for releasing a suspect from the police station while an investigation continues should be bail (unconditional or subject to conditions). Alternatively, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 should be amended to include statutory provisions in relation to the use of RUI, identical to those in force on bail. Additionally, applications to the magistrates’ court to extend bail (or RUI if it remains) should be heard by the magistrates’ court as soon as possible, provided they are served in good time and that, pending such a hearing, bail conditions in place can continue.
Recommendation 12
I recommend that the police and CPS must consistently follow established guidance to guarantee accurate and fair charging decisions. To do so, I would encourage the police and CPS to establish better communication channels to facilitate collaborative decision-making and improvement of their decision-making process.
Recommendation 13
I accept that the statutory threshold for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation where an officer has made a decision regarding bail should remain, but I recommend that the Home Office and IOPC guidance should be amended to make it clear that, in the context of bail, only serious failings of judgement falling far below the standards to be expected of an officer when assessing risk would ever trigger a misconduct investigation.
Recommendation 14
I recommend that the Ministry of Justice considers removing the right to elect for certain low level offences. The removal should, in my view, apply to offences with a maximum sentence length of less than or equal to two years and which could be expanded to other either way offences by the inclusion of offences on a statutory list (which would facilitate ready amendment).
Recommendation 15
I recommend that the ability to amend magistrates’ sentencing powers by Statutory Instrument should be repealed and that the 12-month maximum should be made permanent.
Recommendation 16
I recommend that for either way offences for which the right to elect is to remain, the order of decisions made on allocation should be reversed. Where a defendant indicates a not guilty plea, they should next be invited to elect for Crown Court trial. If the defendant chooses not to elect, only then would the magistrates’ court make its decision on allocation: to retain jurisdiction and try summarily or direct to the Crown Court.
Recommendation 17
I recommend that, to reflect inflation, the existing threshold for criminal damage being tried as a summary only offence be increased from £5,000 to £10,000, as set by section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Recommendation 18
I recommend that the government reclassifies a list of either way offences to summary only (as set out in Annex G) and that the maximum custodial sentence length for these be set at 12 months. The maximum custodial sentence lengths prescribed for existing summary only offences should remain. Consideration should be given to retaining present police powers and existing time limits for the commencement of a prosecution in relation to these reclassified offences.
Recommendation 19
I recommend that trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ court be audio recorded and, if necessary for the purpose of appeals, appropriate parts transcribed.
Recommendation 20
I endorse the recommendation made by Sir Christopher Bellamy KC in the ‘Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid’ in relation to legal aid that committals for sentence should not be remunerated at less than the equivalent remuneration for a guilty plea in the Crown Court.
Recommendation 21
I recommend that the automatic right to appeal is replaced with a requirement for permission to appeal, with grounds to appeal similar to those available from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Recommendation 22
I recommend that the requirement for a full re‑hearing in the Crown Court should be replaced with a hearing on issues for which leave to appeal has been granted.
Recommendation 23
I recommend that a Criminal Practice Direction is introduced as a matter of urgency to set an expectation on the judiciary to apply Goodyear (advance sentence indications) in all trials, irrespective of a request from the defence, in the Crown Court, preferably at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), unless good reasons are given not to provide an indication.
Recommendation 24
I recommend that the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form should be updated immediately to include a requirement for the defendant’s legal representative to confirm that they have asked their client whether they wish to seek an advance indication of sentence at the PTPH.
Recommendation 25
I recommend that any future reform of the legal aid fee scheme should be adjusted to recognise the work advocates do in order to prepare for the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing.
Recommendation 26
I recommend that there should be a pilot scheme to test whether the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing should be delayed to ensure proper engagement between the parties. Further, I recommend this pilot is implemented forthwith and before my other recommendations have been added to the statute book.
Recommendation 27
I recommend that the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea be increased to 40% if the plea is made (or indicated) at the first available opportunity. Further, I suggest it should decrease to one third at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing and, thereafter, be at the discretion of the judge as the case proceeds to trial. This should also apply to magistrates’ courts.
Recommendation 28
I recommend that the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme should be reformed into a banded scheme with most cases in standard fees. The reliance on the number of Pages of Prosecution Evidence as a proxy for the complexity of a case and assessment of fees should cease.
Recommendation 29
I recommend that a Statutory Instrument be laid in Parliament to increase income thresholds for legal aid in the magistrates’ court in line with the current Crown Court criteria for sentencing in either way cases.
Recommendation 30
I recommend the creation of a new Division of the Crown Court: the Crown Court Bench Division. All either way offences would be eligible to be tried in the Crown Court Bench Division. Whether the defendant exercises their right to elect a Crown Court hearing or is sent by the magistrates, in every case, at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), a judge should make a decision to allocate the case to the Crown Court Bench Division or to the Crown Court with a jury. There would be a presumption of a bench trial for any case which carries a prospective sentence of three years or less. Parliament should set a framework within which the PTPH judge would be required to operate.
Recommendation 31
I recommend the Sentencing Council creates Crown Court Division Allocation guidelines following its required consultation process.
Recommendation 32
I recommend that the Crown Court Bench Division would, as part of the Crown Court, have the same sentencing powers as the Crown Court in its current form.
Recommendation 33
I recommend that any judge authorised to sit in the Crown Court in its current form would be eligible to sit in the new Crown Court Bench Division, as part of the Crown Court.
Recommendation 34
I recommend that when it is possible (bearing in mind funding, alongside capacity across the Criminal Justice System) the allocation of sitting days in the Crown Court should be increased to 130,000 per year. This will cover both jury trials and the Crown Court Bench Division. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service should build towards this goal over time, through a range of 110,000 sitting days (the current allocation) to the new target and this sitting day level should be regularly reviewed.
Recommendation 35
I recommend that a vacancy request be addressed to the Judicial Appointments Commission so as to generate a specific ‘Circuit Judge – crime’ and ‘Recorder – crime’ recruitment competition.
Recommendation 36
I recommend that the Lord Chancellor makes greater use of the powers under section 94 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to appoint suitably qualified candidates to conduct criminal work both in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court over and above the previously agreed vacancy request.
Recommendation 37
I recommend that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service maximise sitting days for Recorders, and for Circuit Judges and Recorders sitting-in-retirement.
Recommendation 38
I recommend that the judiciary considers making greater use of flexible deployment into the Crown Court. This could start with the deployment of a greater number of District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts) and Deputy District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts). Deputy High Court Judges who have not been appointed Recorders could also gain criminal experience sitting in the Crown Court Bench Division.
Recommendation 39
I recommend that Crown Court Bench Division hearings should be heard in any available courtroom, provided it has (a) has appropriate access, and (b) recording facilities can be made available. It will also provide for the possibility that Crown Court cases could be heard in buildings in which magistrates’ courts also sit.
Recommendation 40
I recommend that only those eligible to appear in the Crown Court would have rights of audience in the Crown Court Bench Division.
Recommendation 41
I recommend that the Ministry of Justice implements a match funding scheme for Criminal Barrister pupillages to start immediately to address the shortage of criminal advocates
Recommendation 42
I recommend that appeals from the Crown Court Bench Division be on the same basis as appeals from the Crown Court as currently constituted.
Recommendation 43
I recommend that defendants in the Crown Court should be allowed to elect to be tried by judge alone, subject to the trial judge’s consent. The judge would make that decision based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. This decision to elect trial by judge alone should be entered at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing. The trial judge’s decision would be final and there would be no new route to appeal that allocation.
Recommendation 44
I recommend that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by judge alone. Eligible cases should be defined by their hidden dishonesty or complexity that is outside the understanding of the general public. The allocation decision should be made at a Preparatory Hearing. The limits of and process for these powers should be set out in a Practice Direction by the Lady Chief Justice.
Recommendation 45
I recommend that in cases of anticipated exceptional length or complexity (within section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996), a judge should be able to direct trial by judge alone. The allocation decision would be made at a preparatory hearing. The limits of and process for these powers should be set out in a Practice Direction.
All text above is the review's.
No recommendations have this response.