Sending more cases to the magistrates' court and creating a new division that would limit jury trials are not the answer to cutting the Crown court backlog, the Law Society has told the Leveson review.
The government has asked former Queen’s Bench Division president Sir Brian Leveson to explore the possibility of empowering magistrates to deal with more cases as well as the possibility of ‘intermediate courts’, where cases too serious for the magistrates’ courts but not serious enough for the Crown court are heard by a judge flanked by two magistrates.
However, the Society says these two solutions merely shift the burden from one place to another.
In its submission to the Leveson review, the Society says magistrates’ courts are already dealing with a growing backlog, which has led to some trials taking over a year to conclude. In Essex, magistrates are reportedly listing trials into 2026.
The Society said a significant amount of work in the magistrates’ court relates to domestic violence. Such cases are known to suffer from relatively high attrition rates due to complainants withdrawing and the additional delay could hamper the government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls.
Read more
The extra personnel, physical and financial resources required for an ‘intermediate court’ would be better invested in the existing court structure, the Society suggests.
The Leveson review is told that a failure of a fire alarm system at Birmingham’s Victoria law courts, the largest magistrates’ court in the UK, resulted in the loss of 4,176 courtroom days between May 2022 and January 2024. Trials at Nottingham Crown Court recently had to be adjourned due to heating and fire alarm issues.
The Society also queries the cost implications of a judge and two magistrates as opposed to a judge and a jury, the amount of court time that would actually be saved, IT costs and the impact on legal aid funding arrangements.
A short-term measure for cutting the backlog would be to restrict the number of cases entering the system, the Society says. A presumption could be introduced that certain offenders, such as first-timers or those whose offending is linked to mental health or addiction issues, are diverted away from the criminal justice system from the outset.
Meanwhile the Magistrates' Association, in its submission, has given the thumbs up to 'intermediate courts'.
The association tells Leveson that the involvement of active citizens, whether as part of a jury or bench of magistrates, has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries. Magistrates' involvement in all aspects of a case will be especially important to maintain public confidence in the absence of a jury.
Calling for the category of 'either-way' offences to be removed, the association says some defendants may opt for the Crown court knowing their trial could be years away due to the backlog and eventually dropped.
No comments yet