Written 9th July 2025 by Ruth Peters

Today, the Ministry of Justice published the long-awaited Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (Part I), led by the Rt Hon. Sir Brian Leveson. This comprehensive 388-page report is the most significant review of the criminal justice system in over a decade. It confirms what many legal professionals have long feared: the criminal courts in England and Wales are in crisis.

With over 75,000 outstanding Crown Court cases, trials being listed as far ahead as 2029, and a remand population nearing record highs, the system is buckling under the weight of delay, complexity and underinvestment.

This blog breaks down the key findings and recommendations of the review.

The Scale of the Crisis

The review opens with a stark warning: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This isn’t just rhetoric.

As of December 2024:

Over 75,000 cases were pending in the Crown Court; more than double the number in 2019.
Trials are being listed up to four years in advance, with some not expected until 2029.
The remand population has nearly doubled since 2018, with many held beyond statutory custody time limits.
Victims are withdrawing from proceedings due to stress, uncertainty and repeated adjournments.
Public confidence in the justice system has dropped sharply with only 43% believe courts deal with cases promptly.

Sir Brian Leveson warns of a “real risk of total system collapse” if radical reform is not undertaken.

Why Is This Happening?

The review identifies three main causes:

Resource Constraints: Years of underfunding have left courts understaffed, under-maintained and overwhelmed. Legal aid cuts, court closures and reduced sitting days have all contributed.
Increasing Complexity: Advances in technology, forensic science and digital evidence have made trials longer and more complex. Jury trials now take twice as long as they did in 2000.
Rising Caseloads: Since 2019, more serious cases, including sexual offences, knife crime, and fraud, have entered the system, driven by policing priorities and legislative changes. The COVID-19 pandemic and industrial action by the criminal bar exacerbated delays.

The Review’s Vision: A System-Wide Overhaul

Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations are not incremental tweaks. They represent a radical restructuring of how criminal cases are investigated, charged, tried and sentenced. The review is clear: these reforms must be adopted as a package, not cherry-picked.

Here are the most significant proposals:

Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD)

A new division within the Crown Court, the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD), would hear either-way offences likely to result in sentences of three years or less. These cases would be tried by a judge and two magistrates, without a jury.

Sir Brian’s proposal is that the CCBD should have the potential to hear all either-way offences. The decision whether a case should be allocated to the CCBD would be based on a number of factors, principal amongst those being whether the likely custodial sentence on conviction in that case would be three years or less.

This model aims to:

Reduce pressure on jury trials.
Speed up justice for mid-level offences.
Maintain fairness and proportionality.

The specific recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 30: 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: The Sentencing Council creates Crown Court Division Allocation guidelines following its required consultation process.
Recommendation 32: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service maximise sitting days for Recorders, and for Circuit Judges and Recorders sitting-in-retirement.
Recommendation 38: 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: The 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: Only those eligible to appear in the Crown Court would have rights of audience in the Crown Court Bench Division.
Recommendation 41: 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: Appeals from the Crown Court Bench Division be on the same basis as appeals from the Crown Court as currently constituted.

Trial by Judge Alone

In certain complex or lengthy cases, particularly serious fraud, judges could try cases without a jury. Defendants may also elect for judge-only trials, subject to judicial approval.

This proposal is inspired by models in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where judge-only trials are used for complex financial crimes.

The recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 43: 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: 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: 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.

Restricting the Right to Elect Crown Court Trial

Currently, defendants charged with either way offences can elect to be tried in the Crown Court. The review proposes removing this right for offences with a maximum sentence of two years or less, such as:

Criminal damage under £10,000.
Low-level theft.
Certain public order offences.

Instead, these cases would be retained in the Magistrates’ Court unless the magistrates decline jurisdiction.

Recommendation 14: The Ministry of Justice considers removing the right to elect for certain low-level offences. The removal should 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 16: 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.

Reclassification of Offences

The review recommends reclassifying certain offences either way as summary only, meaning they must be tried in the magistrates’ court. This includes:

Shoplifting under a certain value.
Minor drug possession.
Low-level criminal damage.

The recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 17: 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: 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.

Out of Court Resolutions (OOCRs)

The report finds that OOCRs, including cautions, community resolutions and deferred prosecutions are underused.

Out-of-court disposals can be formal or informal mechanisms used by police and prosecutors to resolve cases without the need for court proceedings. They are particularly useful where the public interest in prosecuting is low, and a person is willing to engage with alternatives.

The review calls for:

Greater use of OOCRs at the charging stage.
Retrospective application to suitable cases already in the system.
National standards and digital tools to support consistency.
Integration with restorative justice and rehabilitation programmes.

Specifically, in relation to OOCRs the report makes a number of recommendations:

Recommendation 1: 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: 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: 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: 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: The review endorses 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: 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: 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: Implement Out of Court Resolutions alongside restorative justice for low-tier offences such as some thefts, public order offences and drug misuse.
Recommendation 9: An expansion of the Deferred Prosecution Scheme should be introduced by a legislative amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Recommendation 10: 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.

For first-time or low-level offenders, OOCRs may offer a quicker, less punitive resolution.

Our experienced team of criminal defence specialists at Olliers has successfully prevented thousands of prosecutions by intervening early, making detailed written representations, and negotiating out-of-court resolutions that avoid the stigma and consequences of criminal court proceedings.

Magistrates’ Court Reform

The review proposes:

Making the 12-month sentencing power permanent.
Audio recording all proceedings to support appeals and transparency.
Improving magistrates’ training and diversity.
Reforming legal aid fees to remove perverse incentives.
Removing the automatic right to appeal from the Magistrates’ Court 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).
Similarly recommending 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.

The recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 15: The ability to amend magistrates’ sentencing powers by Statutory Instrument should be repealed and that the 12-month maximum should be made permanent.

Released under Investigation

The report highlights that effective early decision-making by police and the CPS is crucial throughout the criminal justice process – from arrest to post-charge decisions like bail and remand. The Policing and Crime Act 2017, even after its 2022 amendment, led to a practice of releasing suspects under investigation (RUI) without clear time limits, causing delays. Tensions also persist between police and CPS over what constitutes sufficient evidence for charging decisions. Additionally, a fear of being formally investigated if a suspect reoffends while on bail has made police more risk-averse, contributing to a rising remand population, which both causes and reflects the growing backlog of cases.

The report recommends:

Recommendation 11: 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: The police and CPS must consistently follow established guidance to guarantee accurate and fair charging decisions. The review encourages the police and CPS to establish better communication channels to facilitate collaborative decision-making and improvement of their decision-making process.

Legal Aid and Fee Reform

The review highlights how current fee structures discourage early guilty pleas and incentivise delay.

It recommends:

Adjusting fees to reward early engagement.
Reforming the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme.
Increasing income thresholds for legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court.

These changes could improve access to justice and reduce delays. However, they must be implemented carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

Tackling Disproportionality

The review acknowledges that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to elect jury trial and face disproportionate outcomes.

It calls for:

Equality impact assessments for all reforms.
Monitoring of outcomes by demographic group.
Training for judges and magistrates on bias and inclusion.

These measures are essential to ensure reforms do not exacerbate existing inequalities.

What’s Next?

This is only Part I of the review. Part II, the Efficiency Review, will be published later in 2025 and will focus on:

Technology and AI in the courts.
Leadership and inter-agency collaboration.
Infrastructure and estate management.

Olliers Solicitors – Specialist Criminal Defence Lawyers

We are ranked as a ‘Top Tier’ defence and regulatory firm by the Legal 500 2025 and the Chambers Guide 2025. We are a Times Best Law Firm 2025. We are the 2025 Manchester Legal Awards Crime Team of the Year, an award we have won eight times since 2011. Many of our lawyers are Leaders in their Field.

If you’re facing criminal proceedings or want to understand how these changes might impact your case, get in touch. Our experienced team is here to guide you through every step.