On Tuesday 14th October, Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP moved a debate in Westminster Hall on Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson KC’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts.
This is a subject of real significant, one in which I take a keen interest in, both as a barrister prior to entering Parliament and as a current member of the Justice Select Committee.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the debate owing to my duties as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as the Mental Health Bill was being considered in the House of Commons Chambers at the same time. However, had I been able to participate in the debate on the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, I would have said the following:
“I wish to focus my remarks on the proposed introduction of the Crown Court Bench Division.
This reform, however well-intentioned, risks undermining a constitutional safeguard that has been at the heart of our justice system for centuries; the right to trial by jury.
The challenges facing our criminal courts do not stem from a shortage of jurors. The public has consistently stepped forward to fulfil that duty. The real problem lies in the shortage of suitably qualified prosecution and defence advocates. Underfunding, declining legal aid rates, and pressures on the profession have resulted in an insufficient supply of experienced practitioners, leading to delays in serious criminal cases.
The proposals to shift more cases to the magistrates’ courts or to establish intermediate courts may appear to offer relief to the Crown Court backlog, but they simply transfer the burden elsewhere.
The magistrates’ courts are already under strain. In some areas, trials are being listed a year or two hence. Many of these cases involve domestic violence, where any further delay risks serious consequences for victims and undermines efforts to tackle violence against women and girls.
Intermediate courts would require new personnel, facilities, IT systems, and changes to legal aid funding, resources that would be better spent strengthening the existing court structure.
The problems we face are not solved by creating new layers of jurisdiction; they are solved by investing in the advocates, judges, and courtrooms we already have.
Recent examples highlight the underlying issue: Birmingham’s Victoria Law Courts lost over 4,000 courtroom days in less than two years due to a fire alarm failure, whilst heating problems in Nottingham Crown Court forced trials to adjourn. These failures speak to a system in need of maintenance and targeted investment, not wholesale restructuring.
Replacing a jury with a judge and two magistrates is more than an administrative change; it alters a fundamental feature of our justice system.
As Lord Hailsham reminded us, the jury is a safeguard against the excessive concentration of power. It ensures justice is decided not solely by the state but by ordinary citizens, bringing collective judgment to bear on serious matters. That safeguard commands public confidence; and, once diminished, it would be difficult to restore.
If the aim is to reduce delays, let us focus on alleviating the pressures that prevent cases from progressing: recruiting and retaining advocates, repairing court infrastructure, and making sensible use of diversion for certain offenders.
But in doing so, we must preserve the constitutional principles that have served us well for generations.
In closing, I urge the Minister to look again at these proposals. To recognise that the answer to our current backlog lies not in reengineering the court hierarchy, but in reinforcing the resources, professions, and constitutional guarantees that make our justice system one of the fairest in the world.
Reform should support those foundations, not reshape them. We can deliver efficiency without sacrificing principle, and I trust the Government will reconsider these measures in that light.”
