Write perfect custody notes in 3 minutes — Try CustodyNote FreeStart free trial
Log In

The Leveson Criminal Courts Review: What It Means for the Justice System

Sir Brian Leveson's two-part Independent Review of the Criminal Courts proposes sweeping reforms to a system he says is 'on the brink of collapse'. This article explains the full picture — from the 80,000 case Crown Court backlog to the 135 recommendations for change.

Professional DevelopmentIntermediate✓ Fact-Checked1,520 words1 viewsUpdated 8 February 2026

The Leveson Criminal Courts Review: What It Means for the Justice System

Background

In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy commissioned Sir Brian Leveson — the former President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court — to conduct an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. The review was prompted by what Leveson himself described as "truly appalling backlogs" in the criminal justice system.

The review was published in two parts:

  • Part 1 (June 2025) — focused on structural and policy reform
  • Part 2 (4 February 2026) — focused on operational efficiency, containing 135 recommendations

Both parts are intended to be read together. This article summarises the key findings and recommendations.

The Scale of the Crisis

The numbers are stark:

  • As of September 2025, the open Crown Court caseload stood at nearly 80,000 cases — more than double pre-pandemic levels
  • The backlog is on track to hit 100,000 cases by November 2026
  • In the worst-affected courts, trials are being listed into 2030
  • Suspects charged today are being told their cases may not be heard for four to five years
  • Victims are withdrawing from the process because they cannot wait years for justice

Leveson was unequivocal: "I have never seen pressure on the courts at such an unacceptable level — the system stands on the brink of collapse."

The Causes

Leveson identified several interlocking causes:

1. Chronic Underfunding

The Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that "The provision of justice is a smaller fraction of what government does now than it was in the past." Real-term day-to-day spending by the Ministry of Justice in 2025/26 is 14% lower than in 2007/08. Justice spending overall is down 24% since 2007/08 according to the Law Society.

2. Workforce Crisis

  • Criminal legal aid solicitors fell from 14,800 in 2013/14 to 10,200 in 2023/24 — a drop of nearly a third
  • Duty solicitors fell from 5,200 in 2017 to 3,900 in 2024
  • The proportion of criminal legal aid solicitors aged 54 and under fell from 79% to 73% between 2014/15 and 2023/24
  • An average of 64 Crown Court rooms go unused each day due to lack of available judges, barristers, and court staff

3. Increasing Complexity

  • Cases have become more complex due to digital evidence, communications data, and disclosure requirements
  • Violence and sexual offences represent a higher proportion of the caseload
  • Trial lengths have substantially increased
  • Procedural safeguards (PACE, special measures, disclosure rules) — while valuable — each add to court time

4. COVID-19 and Industrial Action

The pandemic and the 2022 Criminal Bar strike action exacerbated an already deteriorating situation.

5. Rising Demand

Increased police numbers (following recruitment drives), the Safer Streets Mission, strategies to tackle violence against women and girls, and the explosion of shop theft have all pushed more cases into an already overwhelmed system.

Part 1: Structural Reform (June 2025)

Part 1 addressed the policy question: can the system handle its caseload? Leveson's answer was no — not without structural change.

Key Part 1 Recommendations

A New "Bench Division" of the Crown Court

Leveson proposed that cases with a likely sentence of three years' imprisonment or less should be heard by a judge sitting with magistrates (not a jury). This would create a middle tier between the magistrates' court and the traditional Crown Court jury trial.

The government's response went further: In December 2025, the government announced it would create a Bench Division where these cases are heard by a judge alone (without magistrates), and would give courts the power to decide where either-way cases are heard — removing the defendant's right to elect jury trial in many cases.

This has been deeply controversial. The Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association, and many other bodies have strongly opposed restricting jury trial rights.

Increased Magistrates' Sentencing Powers

Magistrates would be given the power to impose sentences of up to 18 months (currently 12 months for multiple either-way offences), so more cases can be resolved without involving the Crown Court.

Greater Use of Out-of-Court Resolutions (OOCRs)

Leveson recommended significantly expanding the use of cautions, conditional cautions, community resolutions and other diversionary measures to keep appropriate cases out of the court system entirely.

Match-Funded Pupillages

The government should match-fund pupillages for barristers choosing criminal law, to address the recruitment crisis at the Bar.

Part 2: Efficiency Reforms (February 2026)

Part 2 contained 135 recommendations covering every stage of the criminal process:

Police and Pre-Charge Stage

  • Reduce bureaucratic police file-building — Leveson found that police are spending excessive time on processes that go beyond what the law actually requires (redaction, rebuttable presumption material, excessive file build)
  • Free up police resource to handle more cases through OOCRs
  • Streamline the notification of charge process

Prosecution and Disclosure

  • Improve CPS decision-making and file review at the earliest stage
  • Reform disclosure processes to reduce delays
  • Better use of AI tools to prepare and manage cases

Remote Hearings

Leveson recommended expanding remote/video hearings:

  • First hearings in magistrates' court should be conducted partially remotely by default for custody defendants (on a "test, learn and cost" basis)
  • Mentions and administrative hearings should be remote
  • Police and professional witnesses should attend remotely by default
  • Defendants should only attend sentencing in person if a victim impact statement is being delivered
  • The presumption that trials should be in person should remain

The Law Society and CILEX have expressed concerns about remote hearings, particularly where defendants' liberty is at stake and where the ability to take proper instructions is compromised.

Listing and Case Management

  • Better allocation of courtrooms — with 64 Crown Court rooms empty on an average day, there is significant wasted capacity
  • Improved listing practices to reduce ineffective trials
  • Use of AI for case scheduling

Transport and Logistics

  • Allow prison vans to use bus lanes to get defendants to court on time — late delivery of prisoners is a massive daily problem
  • Address the fact that many remand prisoners are housed far from the court where their case is listed

The Legal Workforce

  • Annual review of legal aid fees — Leveson warned it is "not sustainable to retain the current approach whereby only a crisis triggers a reactive response"
  • Match-fund training for solicitors doing police station and magistrates' court qualifications (mirroring the pupillage recommendation for barristers)
  • Trainee grants for law firms taking on criminal legal aid trainees (echoing the 2021 Bellamy Review recommendation)
  • Financial incentives and recruitment campaigns modelled on successful education sector programmes like Teach First

A Criminal Justice Adviser to the Prime Minister

Leveson recommended appointing a dedicated criminal justice adviser working directly to the PM in the heart of government to oversee implementation of reforms across all agencies.

Reaction and Controversy

Support

  • The Law Society welcomed the workforce recommendations and the emphasis on investment
  • The Bar Council welcomed the efficiency measures and called for them to be implemented and allowed to take effect
  • Rape Crisis welcomed measures to support victims and reduce delays

Opposition

  • The Law Society opposes remote video legal advice at police stations and remote first hearings where liberty is at stake
  • The Criminal Bar Association strongly opposes restrictions on jury trials, noting that Institute for Government research found restricting jury trial would save under 2% of court time
  • CILEX warned that remote hearings risk defendants not having adequate opportunity to take instructions from their lawyers
  • The Bar Council said: "Time and resource should not be further wasted on plans to restrict jury trials when there is no evidence to show it will make a difference any time soon or at all."

The Government Response

Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor David Lammy said the government would respond in full to the recommendations in the coming weeks. He acknowledged that "efficiencies alone are not a silver bullet" but said making the system more efficient was "a vital part of a wider package."

Key Quotes

"I have never seen pressure on the courts at such an unacceptable level — the system stands on the brink of collapse. It is failing victims. It is failing witnesses, and on top of that, it's not even good for defendants." — Sir Brian Leveson, 4 February 2026

"Unless there is a conscious effort to rebuild this workforce to meet this increased demand, I believe the criminal legal aid system is at risk of failure." — Sir Brian Leveson, Part 2 of the Review

"Anyone pretending the appalling backlogs can be fixed simply by unproven headline-grabbing measures, such as cutting jury trials, is betraying the public." — Richard Atkinson, Immediate Past President, Law Society

"His report is an 800-page MOT test report on the criminal justice system. Just like maintaining a car, you can't just fix one component and ignore the rest." — Riel Karmy-Jones KC and Andrew Thomas KC, Criminal Bar Association

Official Sources

This article was compiled from primary sources including the published review documents, the government's written ministerial statement, and responses from the Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association, and CILEX. All statistics are taken directly from the review or cited sources. Last updated: February 2026.