CBA Response to Sir Brian Leveson’s Review (Part 2)
Part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of Criminal Courts was published today (Wednesday 4th February 2026). The full report is 728 pages long (including appendices), published as two volumes.
Its core findings are digested in a 24 page Overview, which we recommend as a clear summary of findings.
The reports can be found here.
The main report is detailed and comprehensive. Our broad view is that we welcome the findings, and we expect to support most if not all of the recommendations. Our approach to some of the details of implementation (for example, on the reform of the disclosure process and on the use of AI) will have to be carefully thought through, but the broad thrust can be supported.
We will provide a more detailed analysis in the Monday Messages to come, but the following is our own overview.
This is a landmark report, and we welcome its findings
Sir Brian Leveson’s latest report exposes in devastating detail the effects of more than 20 years of chronic neglect and underfunding of the criminal justice system. Successive governments have ignored the warnings in official reports and from the professions that our criminal courts have been heading towards a total breakdown. This has got to stop.
Sir Brian reveals that £1.3 billion worth of repairs are required to fix our crumbling court buildings and infrastructure. He also highlights the need for incentives for lawyers to stay working within the criminal justice system, and to recruit young lawyers to this important work.
His message contains serious warnings, but he is positive about the contribution which the Criminal Justice System makes to society. Sir Brian clearly remains optimistic that concerted action can save the system before it is too late.
We trust that all of government – not just the Ministry of Justice, but the Prime Minister and the Treasury – will read Sir Brian’s recommendations and realise that investment is needed to reverse the effects of decades of neglect.
We are pleased that Sir Brian has taken on board almost all of the CBA’s submissions on efficiency measures. In the 135 recommendations in his report, he identifies the practical measures which are the key to resolve the backlog and delays.
Sir Brian’s analysis is detailed and compelling. He has produced a full a MOT test report on the criminal justice system. His report is a 750-page list of failures and requirements for immediate action. Just like maintaining a car, you can’t just fix one component and ignore the rest: every part needs to be restored to full function to keep it on the road. If the MoJ and the Treasury do not act on this, the criminal justice system is going to end up on the scrapheap.
The CBA has said repeatedly every year for the past decade that the Home Office and Ministry of Justice must have a workable plan with Treasury prepared to make the immediate investment in order. This report agrees that such an approach is essential for any form of functioning criminal justice system to work, repeatedly calling for forward planning.
We agree with Sir Brian’s call for joined up thinking – “One Criminal Justice System” – which runs as a theme through this report. The problems with efficiency do not begin and end at the Court door. There are issues ‘upstream’ for our overworked police officers and the CPS, and ‘downstream’ for prisons and probation services, and related services such as healthcare, social care and education services.
We also welcome Sir Brian’s recommendation for the appointment of a Chief Criminal Justice Adviser, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, to oversee the implementation of his detailed recommendations.
We are pleased in particular that Sir Brian recommends reinstating an independent HM Inspectorate of Courts Administration. The CBA have been calling for that action since 2021, and won the support of the Justice Select Committee. This report brings that a step closer. We cannot continue to have the MOJ mark its own homework on the dire performance of the HMCTS.
Leveson Part 2 is a government-commissioned, independent review of all aspects of the Criminal Justice System. Its message could not be any clearer – no government can press the funding and policy accelerator at the police and prosecution end of the criminal justice system without commensurate substantial and sustained funding for our courts.
We commend Sir Brian for shining a light in forensic detail on the chronic underfunding and manifest, cost wasting inefficiencies. There are no shortcuts to be had. All of government – including the Treasury – must recognise that a properly-functioning criminal justice system underpins the economic prosperity and social cohesion which this Government has pledged to the electorate.
We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, in the Judiciary and across the professions to ensure that these recommendations are acted upon.
Impact on the Jury Trials Debate
Sir Brian Leveson’s Part 2 report is about Efficiency and Investment. The MoJ’s carefully crafted media messages attacking our system of jury trials must not be allowed to hide the true message of Sir Brian’s report. What this report is about is the consequences of 20 years of chronic neglect by the MoJ and the measures – costly measures – which are needed to be taken to repair the damage
We respectfully disagree with Sir Brian on the recommendation in his first report that a large proportion of Crown Court cases should be heard by a judge and two magistrates instead of a judge and jury. That is a different debate for another time – it will likely be Parliament which will now decide what reform (if any) should be allowed.
However, in his second report Sir Brian has been forced to deal with the awkward fact that Justice ministers simply tore up his proposal for a CCBD of judge and two magistrates and replaced it with the even more controversial plan for Judge-only trials.
Sir Brian has dealt with that stark divergence of views with typical diplomacy. He has quietly pointed out that, in the light of the conclusions in David Lammy’s own 2017 report, that equalities impact assessments will be important to the debate.
In touching on these matters, Sir Brian raises the question of disproportionality as regards fair outcomes for peoples of all ethnic backgrounds and has explicitly referenced the Lammy report. That report held the jury system to be the one aspect of the criminal justice system which was not tainted by racial bias.
Sir Brian rightly says [page 17, para 32]:
“It is crucial to understand that the effectiveness of the court system is not only measured by speed or cost-efficiency, but also by its ability to deliver justice fairly to all participants.”
He goes on to say:
“Disproportionality – where certain groups may be adversely affected by policies, procedures or outcomes – remains a significant issue and must be addressed with the same rigour as other principles.”
The CBA and Bar Council have argued that juries have not caused backlogs or delays. In his latest report Sir Brian agrees with this. He writes: “Juries are not to blame for the open caseload. I have never suggested to the contrary”. [Overview, Page 16]. Juries produce demonstrably fair results for victims and the accused, regardless of gender, race or socio-economic background.
The Criminal Bar are not against change. We agree that there are many minor offences which could be reclassified as summary-only and tried in the Magistrates Court. But as professionals who understand how trials actually work in practice, we are united in our opposition to proposals to slash trial by jury by 50%. We agree with Sir Brian that no-one suggests that all crimes should be tried by jury, and that the question is where to draw the line between minor offences and serious matters which deserve resolution before a jury. A charge which could result in a prison sentence of 2 or 3 years is not a minor matter.
The proposed replacements – either trial by Judge alone or trial by Judge and two selected Magistrates – are both unworkable, unfair and will not carry the confidence of the British public.
Several Crown Courts have shown that it is possible to reduce the backlogs substantially without interfering with the right to trial by jury. As Sir Brian’s report records, initiatives at Liverpool and Nottingham Crown Courts have shown how targeted judicial case management can reduce the number of cases which need to go to trial.
Government must be brave and take the lessons on board from those courts and provide funding nation-wide so that other courts can follow suit. But – leave juries to do what they do so well, so that victims and the accused can obtain the justice they deserve.
Sir Brian has said in his reports, and in the media, that all of his recommendations must move forward together; that is (1) investment; (2) efficiency measures and (3) structural reform (including CCBD). It is a neat soundbite, but it is not in fact the case. There are 135 separate recommendations for investment and efficiency in Part 2 of Sir Brian’s Review. Not a single one of them requires the implementation of the CCBD to be brought into effect. The only thing which potentially stands in their way is the willingness or otherwise of the government – and the Treasury in particular – to put in the hard work and investment to bring them into effect.
Yours,
Riel
Riel Karmy-Jones KC Andrew Thomas KC
Chair Vice-Chair
The Criminal Bar Association The Criminal Bar Association