Leveson calls for radical justice reform as court backlogs hit breaking point

Sir Brian Leveson’s 378-page review demands urgent reform to avoid justice system collapse

Britain’s criminal courts are facing an existential crisis, according to Sir Brian Leveson, whose sweeping review calls for urgent and radical reforms. With Crown court case backlogs soaring to nearly 77,000, the former head of criminal justice warns the system is “too broken” and at risk of total collapse.

In his 378-page review, Leveson proposed a series of controversial changes – chief among them, curbing jury trials for a range of offences. Under his vision, crimes carrying a maximum sentence of two years would no longer qualify for Crown court jury trials. Offences such as assault on emergency workers or stalking would also face tighter controls on trial mode. Serious fraud trials, he suggested, should be judge-only.

Leveson acknowledged that jury trials aren’t always ideal for the increasingly complex and technical cases now hitting the courts. Expert evidence, massive data sets, and drawn-out trials burden both jurors and the system. His proposals aim to preserve jury trials for the most serious cases while unclogging the lower tiers of the justice process.

The recommendations have drawn sharp criticism. Criminal defence solicitor Marcus Johnstone called the idea of dispensing with jury trials in sexual offence cases “unrealistic” and predicted defendants would overwhelmingly opt for juries, fearing harsher outcomes from judges.

Bar Council chair Barbara Mills KC argued the crisis stems not from structure but from chronic underfunding. “It is the failure to invest properly in the justice system over decades that has led to the crisis,” she said.

Among Leveson’s more radical proposals is a new Bench Division within the Crown court, where a judge would sit alongside two magistrates to hear either-way offences. But Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, warned this would require recruiting 6,000 new magistrates just to keep pace.

Leveson also attacked the “perverse incentives” in legal aid fees that encourage late guilty pleas. Under the current model, defence solicitors earn more if a case reaches the Crown court, even if the defendant ultimately pleads guilty. This structure, he argued, delays justice and undermines efficiency.

Richard Atkinson, Law Society president, said that while solicitors do advise clients at every stage, “the system must be structured to support early resolutions,” which are often hampered by delayed evidence disclosure and inadequate remuneration.

In another contentious reform, Leveson proposed capping sentence reductions for early guilty pleas at 40%. Critics warn this could harm incentives for self-reporting in corporate fraud cases, where Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) currently carry up to a 50% discount.

Caroline Black, a solicitor at Gherson, warned that the reduced discount may discourage companies from voluntary cooperation, undermining the Serious Fraud Office’s strategy.

Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood backed Leveson’s call for bold change. “Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system in the most serious cases,” she said, but added that magistrates’ courts, which already handle 90% of trials, must take on more to ease delays. “With victims waiting so long, we must ask: do all cases need juries?”

The government will respond to Leveson’s report later this year, ahead of planned legislation in autumn. A second report, focused on court efficiency, is expected by the end of 2025.

For now, Leveson’s review sends a stark message: without fundamental restructuring, Britain’s criminal justice system may no longer be able to deliver justice at all.