Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord Leveson of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leveson of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the criminal justice system is in crisis. The police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts, prisons and probation all have different priorities and different financial pressures. The appointment of a new Second Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice is a welcome attempt to try to ensure that all those involved have a common direction and work together. On top, I recognise that the judiciary has the unenviable task of trying to maintain the balance between the prosecution and the defence, and ensure fairness for all. Prison vans may be late, but that may be a consequence of remand prisoners not being housed because of pressures on prison cells in a prison near to their court.

Although I will come to deal with the crisis, the rationalisation of criminal justice is indeed a principled objective, unconnected to the backlog of cases. Reference is frequently made to the unalienable rights of trial by jury to decide the facts, but the impressive lecture—to which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred—given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, last week to the Selden Society, utterly demolishes this argument. He noted that, in 1751, the average trial over four days took about 30 minutes. There was no choice of type of trial until 1847. Property ownership was a requirement of jury service until after 1965, and that meant that 89% of jurors until then were men.

When I started at the Bar in 1970, two trials a day was not unusual—occasionally against the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—but what is the position now? The gravity of trials for sexual offending, for violence and for organised crime is much greater. Complexity, along with protective measures for victims and defendants, has dramatically increased their length. Communications data, body-worn video, CCTV, data generally, scientific evidence including DNA have all changed prosecutions, as have the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, disclosure of unused material, special measures, intermediaries and interpreters—the list goes on.

What can be done? I could not seek to summarise my independent review before your Lordships. It is based, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, on over 55 years’ involvement in criminal justice, of which for 18 years I was involved in the judicial management of criminal cases. Seldom has my homework been marked by so many in such a public forum. At its core, however, is what I consider to be an undeniable truth: that to be effective and to cope with the challenges of crime, its prosecution and justice in the 21st century, the component parts of the system need increased funding, structural reform and increased efficiency. In my view, with great respect to noble Lords, it is a fantasy to believe that more money and improved efficiency will solve the problem. We have been trying to make it more efficient for years and years. Trial processes must evolve to fit modern circumstances.

On top of that, we must consider the position in relation to the backlog or number of outstanding cases. My reviews were published in July 2025 and February of this year. Given the opposition to change, of which I have heard a great deal this afternoon, you would imagine that every part of the system would be straining to improve efficiency and to demonstrate that structural change was not necessary. From April, the start of the period covering the most recent statistics, there has been no cap on sitting days, so you might have expected a great improvement. In fact, the system has gone backwards. I do not for one moment seek to rely simply on one set of figures, but they illuminate the problem.

At the end of June 2026, as your Lordships have heard, there were 80,829 open cases—double that in 2019 —and 392 cases more than at the end of March. It is argued that 392 is a small increase, but in that three-month period receipts fell by 7%; that is to say, there were 7% fewer cases sent to the Crown Court for trial. Disposals were down 4%; that means 4% fewer cases left the system. Receipts have been decreasing since the middle of 2024, but the backlog grows. All the indicators are going the wrong way.

Worse still, median waiting times have increased. Almost 24,000 cases have been waiting for a year or more for trial, and more than half are for violent or sexual offences. The number is 22% higher than the previous year. Some cities are better, but, in London, cases are being listed for 2030. This is grossly unfair to victims, who need to be able to move on with their lives but are caught in a time warp from which they cannot escape except by withdrawing, which a number do. Witnesses are required to recall the events of years past. What an indictment of the state we have reached.

I was required to consider longer-term options for Crown Court reform to reduce demand and retain more cases in the lower courts. I suggested a raft of structural proposals. In relation to some, the Government have gone further than I recommended, such as on magistrates’ sentencing powers and on removing the right to elect, as opposed to the reclassification to summary offences of some triable either way. In relation to others, they have not been taken forward. This is for the Government and Parliament to consider and determine. I have been clear that, although the package of money and structural reform is not a pick and mix, I was not suggesting a slavish commitment to what I recommended. As a result, however, I am not in a position to speak of the impact of the proposals in the legislation because they are not my proposals. Given that it does not address the large volume of cases awaiting trial, I am apprehensive about whether it is enough. Further, the reduction in cases entering the system is unlikely to be reproduced, as the Government rightly wish to focus on public safety and, in particular, violence against women and girls.

Victims and witnesses, and indeed defendants who wish to move on with their lives, are human beings who require consideration. In that regard, I pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stace, whose humanity shone out in his maiden speech. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, whose interest in offenders is particularly well known.

It is worth noting that, in 2014, 8% of cases triable either way elected trial by jury. In 2022, it was 17%, because those who wish to play the system rather like the idea of having their trial deferred to 2030.

I end with two simple questions. Putting to one side the demands of the outstanding cases, in our modern times, with the plethora of evidence lengthening every trial, if not this, then what? If not now, then when?