Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

Bar Council Proposes Alternatives to Crown Court Trials Amid Justice System Backlog

The Bar Council has put forward a proposal to address the growing backlog within the criminal courts by suggesting that first-time offenders of low-level crimes should be diverted from the trial process. This diversion would involve paying compensation to victims or engaging in rehabilitation programs, rather than facing traditional court proceedings.

Amid increasing delays in cases within crown courts, the government has considered the idea of disbanding jury trials in certain instances. However, the Bar Council, representing barristers across England and Wales, has labeled this approach as an “unprincipled response” that is unlikely to effectively mitigate the crisis.

In a comprehensive submission to a review of the criminal justice system led by Sir Brian Leveson, a former high court judge, the Bar Council criticized the government’s proposal to create a new intermediate court between magistrates’ courts and crown courts. They argued that this wouldn’t address the fundamental issues causing the backlog, which stems primarily from the increasing volume of cases.

Sir Brian Leveson has been tasked with reviewing potential solutions for the crisis, while the government has indicated an interest in establishing new courts that would allow judges to collaborate with magistrates in order to expedite trial processes.

The Bar Council emphasized that modifying the core framework of the criminal justice system is neither a principled nor effective solution. They maintain that the current backlog is not fundamentally a result of the structure itself and expressed strong opposition to changes that would limit citizens’ rights to jury trials.

In its analysis, the Bar Council pointed out a shortage of judges in both magistrates’ and crown courts, raising concerns about who would staff any additional court created under the government’s proposal. They suggested that the increasing influx of cases must be addressed through alternative approaches.

The Bar Council proposed that first-time offenders of minor offenses should not automatically face trials or custodial sentences. Alternative measures, such as victim restitution, victim engagement, or rehabilitation training, were recommended as more constructive options.

Michelle Heeley KC, a criminal barrister involved in the review, commented on the government’s suggestion for an intermediate court, stating that while it may appear beneficial, the practical implications of implementation are flawed. “The practicality of it just doesn’t work,” she noted, raising concerns over where judges would come from, given the current shortages in both magistrates’ and crown courts.

Instead of establishing a new court system, barristers have suggested that retired judges under the age of 75 should be permitted to serve for as many days as they can, arguing that lifting the cap on sitting days could alleviate some of the backlog challenges.

Proposals for Reform

To further ease the burden on crown courts, the Bar Council recommended that district judges be granted the authority to impose sentences of up to two years. Additionally, they advocated for a broader use of cautions for minor offenses committed by individuals of good character.

Furthermore, the Bar Council’s submission included proposals related to defendants deemed clinically insane. They suggested that when medical professionals unanimously agree on a defendant’s mental state, the court could potentially bypass lengthy trials by entering a verdict of insanity at an earlier stage, particularly in cases where treatment would be the likely outcome.

The impetus for Sir Brian Leveson’s review followed a series of reports highlighting the serious ramifications of severe delays in the court system on victims, defendants, and the justice framework as a whole. The Guardian’s series uncovered a court system in crisis, underscoring the urgency for reform.

Lord Thomas, the former lord chief justice, previously advised that the government might need to consider abandoning jury trials for certain crown court cases unless they properly funded the justice system, which he described as being in “serious crisis.” He asserted, “If you want to keep the jury trial, you have to pay for it. It’s a choice politicians are very reluctant to make.”

In light of these matters, the Ministry of Justice has been approached for comments regarding the Bar Council’s proposals. When announcing the review, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood acknowledged the unprecedented scale of the crown court crisis, signifying a need for significant reform within a system currently under immense strain.

Source
www.theguardian.com