Leveson's False Dawn

The Leveson review into the criminal justice system was published with much fanfare this morning.

The wide range of suggestions have made numerous headlines, but there is important context that we must not forget when considering their validity and prospects of success.

Based on the frame of reference, Sir Brian Leveson was tasked with solving the record backlog in the courts, without suggesting that more investment was needed.

As The Secret Barrister pointed out on X, this is like asking how to stop a man from starving to death without being able to suggest giving him food to eat.

The result, in a metaphorical sense, is that the courts are being asked to chew off their own arm.

Undoubtedly the most divisive suggestion is that many trials that would normally be heard before a jury should instead just be heard before a judge. The right to be tried by one’s peers is something that is considered very dear to the English legal system and a safeguard against corruption.

Leveson has correctly pointed out in interviews that under human rights law, the right is to a fair trial and that is not necessarily a trial by jury.

That right is affected when defendants and victims alike are subjected to years of delays pending a resolution.

All of that might be true, but it does not mean that the answer is to remove such a great bastion of English jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, all of this discussion around juries has cast a shadow over many of the other valuable suggestions that might assist in reducing the case backlog.