Over the past week, the Guardian’s Courts in crisis series has laid bare the scale of dysfunction in the legal system in England and Wales.
Barristers and judges overworked. Devastated victims dropping out of prosecutions after being pushed to the edge by torturous waits. Prisons busting at the seams, with some inmates spending up to five years behind bars before they have been found guilty of any crime.
The series revealed that the number of rape victims pulling out of prosecutions before trial has more than doubled in five years, while court backlogs are driving innocent people to plead guilty.
On Thursday, the latest official figures added further evidence on to the damning pile: the backlog of criminal cases waiting to be dealt with by crown courts in England and Wales stood at 73,105 at the end of September – a new record high. There have been warnings that this could hit 100,000 without radical change.
There is no doubt this is needed. The government admits that even if crown courts were to work at full capacity, the backlog would still grow.
This critical point has pushed well-respected senior figures to call for an overhaul. The former lord chief justice Lord Thomas floated the idea of abandoning jury trials for some crown court cases – and now it appears ministers are listening.
So what is the government proposing? It has asked the high-profile former high court judge Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review into the criminal justice system.
The most attention-grabbing proposal is asking him to consider a whole new breed of criminal court: “intermediate courts” would exist between magistrates and crown courts, crucially doing away with the need for a jury for trials that would previously have been in one of England and Wales’ 70-plus crown courts.
Combine these intermediate courts with proposals to further empower magistrates to deal with crimes of a more serious nature, and the role of the jury in criminal justice in England and Wales could be on the verge of being wound back.
The jury system has, arguably, been established in England for about 1,000 years. Trial by jury is often referred to as the cornerstone of the justice system, and any attempts to diminish its role should be seen as a significant change.
Interested groups, from solicitors to barristers and from magistrates to victims’ rights campaigners, greeted the proposal for intermediate courts with caution.
Magistrates said it was “sensible” while solicitors said they were not convinced the idea was a “silver bullet” to solve the backlog. The Law Society said such a system would in itself take time and money to set up – resources that would be better spent on fixing the existing system.
And this is where all parties appear to be in agreement – more money is needed, and lots of it. Victim Support said the review came at a time when funding for services that support victims were being cut.
“While fundamental reform is needed, it is shortsighted to think that this crisis will be solved without serious investment in court staff, infrastructure and victims’ services,” the charity’s chief executive, Katie Kempen, said.
Solicitors said that if there were resources available – whether personnel, infrastructure or money – they should be pumped into the existing court structure.
But such pleas come at a time when the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has warned the public finances are in a dire way. Billions of pounds must be found just to keep public services going. The chances of the government finding more for the criminal justice system in the current climate seem slim.
