The Leveson Review

The Leveson Review has been published today, the 9th July 2025. It is 388 pages long. We acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort that this review has taken and have attempted to distill its content for you in these three pages.

In 2011, when a Bill of Rights was being considered, the Rowntree Foundation surveyed the public widely as to what rights the public held dear and wished to be protected in their Bill of Rights. Two things took the top spot. They were a right to free medical care on the NHS and the right to trial by jury. That right has not been entrenched into a Bill of Rights or a constitution, but it does not mean that the British public do not value that right or wish to protect it.

We accept that the system is in crisis due to severe under investment. We are passionate about making the system better. That needs to start today. However, before removing the current fundamental rights and replacing them with, amongst other things, a new court, could we please make efficiency the key? Sitting days must be increased now to their maximum as Sir Brian suggests. If there is money for additional courts and additional sitting days, let us use that to reduce the backlog now. If there must be further change after that, then it must be by a pilot, so we can see if it actually shortens trials and saves money – if it actually works.

There are some aspects of Sir Brian’s recommendations which are plainly sensible, and which should be acknowledged and appreciated. Sir Brian recommends that the Government adopts a matched pupillage scheme in which it funds the next generation of pupils at the criminal Bar. We welcome that investment in our future and see it as a vote of confidence in our profession. It is recommended that the proposed new Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD) be a division of the Crown Court and will require advocates who appear in front of it to have the same qualifications as those who appear in the Crown Court. Importantly, the fee structure for this Court will be the same as that for the Crown Court. This is helpful to retention and recruitment moving forward.

Increasing out of court resolutions and removing release under investigation so that investigations do not drag on are also good ideas. A pilot scheme to delay PTPH hearings for 12 weeks until the evidence has been served and advice can be given is welcomed. An increase in the fee for a committal for sentence to the equivalent guilty plea is also important.

It is recommended that the current Crown Courts sit at 113,000 days a year. We heartily agree.

After that there are a series of radical reforms suggested for the Government to consider. They are said to be the only alternative to the complete and inevitable collapse of the system.

The Magistrates’ Court:

It is said that the Magistrates’ Court is very efficient. Yet we know that there are over 310,000 cases in the backlog. Some 58% of the concluded cases in the last quarter of 2024 were from the Single Justice Procedure.

It is suggested that the increased sentencing powers of 12 months’ imprisonment become permanent and that a small number of offences become summary only. If the Gauke Review is implemented, then short custodial sentences will only be rarely imposed, and a plethora of minor crimes will be dealt with by out of court disposals as Sir Brian recommends. Credit for guilty plea is recommended to increase to 40%. This would reduce a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to one of 7.2 months and a sentence of six months’ custody (26 weeks) to one of 15 weeks. A defendant would serve half of that sentence. If the recommendations of the Gauke Review are implemented, then we would suggest that one efficient plan which could be put in place with limited financial expenditure would be to make many criminal offences with a current maximum of two years’ imprisonment summary only offences.

It is recommended that the automatic right to appeal against conviction or sentence in the Magistrates’ Court be removed. Rather, to mount an appeal, the same criteria for appealing to the Court of Appeal will be required. It is not clear whether the additional administrative burden that will fall upon advocates to draft appeals against conviction and sentence, would be remunerated. Currently, successful appeals against conviction and sentence occur in just over 40% of cases. In order to enable the appeal system to work, it is suggested that all Magistrates’ Courts have DARTS or a different recording system so that transcripts can be obtained. Whilst we do not oppose the use of a recording system in the Magistrates’ Court – it may be long overdue – we do however query the cost of this technical introduction, and the resultant global savings in terms of court time.

In the Magistrates’ Court, for either way offences, according to Sir Brian’s recommendations, the defendant will be asked their plea, then if it is not guilty, their election, and then the Magistrates will decide if it is necessary to commit for trial if the defendant does not choose to elect trial in the Crown Court.

When a defendant elects trial now, the defendant knows that means trial by jury. Under the new proposals, a defendant is electing for a Judge to decide whether the trial is by jury or by CCBD.

The Crown Court:

There is little change to indictable-only offences, other than the Judge will give an indication of sentence, whether requested or otherwise, and the credit for plea at PTPH will be 30%.

Serious and complex fraud and some other cases are likely to be dealt with by Judge alone.

For either-way offences, a new system is recommended.

At the PTPH the Judge will decide whether the defendant’s case is dealt with in the CCBD or by Judge and Jury. If the likely sentence is three years or less then it is anticipated that the case will be heard in the CCBD, subject to any additional complexity. If, after the trial, it is determined that the sentence should be above three years, then the CCBD can go ahead and impose the appropriate sentence. There is no right of appeal against this decision. The tribunal will be a District Judge, Recorder, Circuit Judge or possibly a Deputy High Court Judge who has not ordinarily sat in crime. That Judge will sit with two Magistrates. There is a national shortage of Magistrates. A survey was sent out by the review to Magistrates to ask if they were keen to do this. Only 27% responded and 84% of that 27% thought that they could do so between one and twenty additional days.

The cases which can therefore be heard in the CCBD include all either-way offences. There are currently 725 either-way offences and 418 indictable only offences. That means, ignoring limits on trial for complex frauds etc, that there are 63% of cases currently within the scope of a jury trial which will not necessarily be tried by a jury.

Appeal from this Court will be to the Court of Appeal on the same basis as a Crown Court trial.

The proposed cases, set out in Annex G, within the list of things likely to be tried there include a range of sexual offences, violence, cruelty and sexual abuse of children, assaults and stalking, together with many dishonesty offences. It appears that it was intended that all either-way offences be listed there but a number are omitted. It is not clear whether the omissions are intended to be included within the annex.

What level of time saving will this new Court provide, once we have recruited enough Magistrates and Judges to cover the cases? It is impossible to say, but it is suggested that a conservative estimate is 20% and that this would be the equivalent of 9,000 sitting days. Whether that factors in the inevitable delays due to prisoner transport, insufficient interpreters, structural problems at court, DARTS not working, insufficient advocates etc is not clear. Presumably the CCBD will not require time to consider their verdicts or sentences. We understand that brief reasons for decisions of facts and law will be provided. What the Court of Appeal will make of these remains to be seen.

Fraud trials:

It is anticipated that complex fraud cases will be tried by Judge alone. There are currently less than 2,000 fraud cases in the backlog. Jonathan Fisher KC is an expert in fraud and disclosure; he recently provided a report on these cases. He did not recommend the removal of the right to jury trial. The global conviction rate for fraud cases is 85%. Juries can and do understand evidence. Whilst we appreciate the point that cases may take a little longer whilst complexity is distilled into simplicity, simplicity is a virtue for these proceedings because the defendants, victims, witnesses and members of the public who are able to attend and follow cases should also be able to understand the case. We have an open public justice system.

Two models are suggested. The first is that in serious and complex fraud cases an eligible Judge sits with two qualified lay assessors who are experts in their field. The second is trial by Judge alone. The decision as to whether a case should be tried by Judge alone would be taken by the Judge at PTPH. That decision could be appealed. Eligible Judges will be those with criminal and commercial experience, such as those in Southwark. Sir Brian considers that the second option would be quicker. He suggests, whichever model is used, that this court will try cases where the dishonesty is not immediately obvious, the area of business is not understood by the general public and the defendant is an expert in their field. It may also include bribery and corruption offences. An alternative would be to use the definition contained within Schedule 11 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and cover internet-enabled crime.

We have been working very hard to represent your interests this week. We have had a meeting with Sir Brian Leveson and a meeting with Sarah Sackman MP, Minister for State and Courts and Legal Services. We have a meeting scheduled with the Lord Chancellor. We are consulting with previous CBA Chairs, and next week will be holding a meeting with Heads of Chambers. We consult regularly with the Bar Council and leaders of the Circuits.

We will continue to take your soundings and views, and to that end, will be asking you what you think of the proposed changes, because we need to fully understand what you, the criminal Bar, think about the recommendations in order that we can relay them to Sir Brian and the Government, who will listen to our suggestions and thoughts on efficiency, and we hope take them into Part 2 of the Report, due out next year.

To that end, we will be producing a short snap survey to canvass your opinions. This is not to deal with what we will do if these recommendations are accepted by the Government.  That would be premature. It is to assist us to continue to present your opinions to Sir Brian and the Government, in order to ensure that they actively listen to our collective view.

View more news