I agree with Anthony Rogers, the chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, that one answer to dealing with the crown court backlog is to consider whether more cases can be dealt with in the magistrates court (Crown court backlog in England and Wales ‘could hit 100,000 without radical overhaul’, 1 November). On the other side of the coin, there are consistently between 5,000 and 6,000 cases a quarter that the law currently demands are listed in the magistrates court even though there is no power to deal with trials or sentences. These are the most serious offences known as “indictable only” offences, such as rape and robbery.
Inevitably, there is no progress on first listing and the case is adjourned on to the crown court a few weeks later. Delays and duplications of resources right across the board are inevitable with these cases.
So why does this happen? Historically, any defendant charged with these serious offences would normally be kept in custody after charge. There is a right to bail, and the magistrates court hearing would be necessary to deal with applications for bail quickly. But legislation now allows the police to release defendants on bail with conditions – for example, curfews – at the point of charge. So the number of bail applications in court has vastly reduced. There is no point in bailed defendants appearing in the magistrates court. Realistically, nothing can happen except to send the case to the crown court.
Radical, but it’s common sense surely to change the law to enable those bailed on “indictable only” charges to appear directly at the crown court. A plea can be taken and progress can then be made on the very first day that the case is listed, along with any associated matters. No delays, no duplication of resources, and no completely pointless listings in the magistrates court.
Janet Carter
Retired barrister, Leeds
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
