Jury-free trials recommended to save courts from ‘collapse’

According to proposals made by a former senior judge, thousands of cases that normally be heard in front of a jury should be decided only by judges.

Sir Brian Leveson was asked by the Lord Chancellor to prepare a series of offers to reduce the accumulated operation of the cases in the criminal courts.

There are about 77,000 cases waiting to be tried in the Crown Court in England and Wales – so some defendants and victims are waiting for years for justice.

After examining the status of the criminal courts, Sir Brian proposed “basic” reforms to “reduce the risk of total system collapse”. However, some lawyers claim that juries are necessary for fair justice, and it is wrong to scrape them.

In order to correct what he called a broken system, Sir Brian offered to only receive a trial case for certain cases such as fraud and bribery.

Another suggestion includes more than court decisions, such as warnings.

He wants a new portion of the Crown Court to cope with less serious crimes of two magistrates and a judge and to increase the number of guilty satisfaction at the first opportunity.

This is about shortening the process in the hope of interrupting great accumulated work.

He said, “Our criminal justice system stands at a critical point.” Sir Brian, who was asked to look at the subject in December last year.

“Delayed justice is considered well that justice is rejected, but record and rising court accumulation, victims, witnesses and defendants for months, sometimes for years – means that they cannot continue their lives.”

Sir Brian said the proposed changes were designed to “convert our courts into a system that provides appropriate and fair decision -making”.

He continued: “In addition, a fair trial preserves the basic right to adopt an approach proportional to trial processes.

He continued: “These are not small fine adjustments, but the basic changes that will try to make the system suitable for the 21st century.”

The proposals mean that more cases will be heard in the magistrates’ courts, and the jury hearings are reserved for the most serious cases.

In both cases, crimes with maximum two years or shorter crimes such as possession of drugs, bicycle theft and x -raying may face 12 months imprisonment or less penalties.

The defendants can no longer choose a jury trial for crimes such as the attack of an emergency worker, a child’s inappropriate photograph and to have a child.

However, not all lawyers agree with the proposed changes.

And in response, Mary Prior Kc, President of the Penal Bar Association Association, said: “Any basic change will require criminal lawyers who prosecute and defend in the Crown court to believe that this is the best way.

“This is a radical change in the criminal justice system, we will listen to what our members say. There is a lot to digest.”

“Our jury system is central and very important for our justice system.

“While the jury comes with diversity, the judiciary is still very missing. The right to trial by the person’s peers should not be removed or diluted in any way, in shape or form.”

However, the Magistrates’ Association welcomed the examination by saying that it would accelerate justice for thousands.

Mark Beattie, the National President of the Magistrates ‘Association, said, “Magistrates’ judges are ready and willing to support these and other initiatives, which aim to reduce the pressure on the crown courts.” He said.

He continued: “We call on the government’s suggestions as soon as possible. Every day they are not in place, victims, witnesses and defendants should wait for justice.”

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said: “As Sir Brian rightly defines, the criminal justice in this country has the risk of” total system collapse “unless it takes the radical steps necessary to reversed years of decline.

“It is not right for more than 100 essays listed in London to be 2029. This is even worse with permanent delays to close traumatic experiences for victims and all parties who trust a court system.”

“I welcome this report and now look forward to working with partners throughout the government to offer bold reforms that are not an option, but a necessity.”

Among the recommendations:

• Classification of certain crimes
• The creation of a new part of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to deal with “less serious crimes” that will include a little theft, theft and fraud crimes
• More use of decisions outside the court – more quickly disturbing by police at a lower level, usually for the first time – more use of warnings and conditional warnings
• The abolition of the right to trial in cases where the maximum penalty is re -classified as a “summary” as a “summary” and the right to trial (that is, they will be heard only in a magistrate’s court)
• The criminal damage threshold is a criminal offense from £ 5,000 to £ 10,000.
• Maximum sentence reduction for guilty satisfaction at the first opportunity increased to 40% and encourages faster case resolution
• Judge judgments introduced by elections for the defendant side or for the most complex cases

The investigation proposed immediately to implement key reforms, but admitted that most of the changes would take time to promote and “should be carefully managed to ensure that the public is never put at risk”.

The government said that Sir Brian will now take into account all his suggestions and respond to the entire legislation in autumn.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in a statement: “The courts made money for record levels by financing the courts of 4,000 courts than the previous one.

“But faster justice requires a bold reform and I asked Sir Brian Leveson to offer.”

“As a part of our change plan, I will do whatever it takes to lower accumulated work and offer faster justice for the victims.”

A second review focusing on the court efficiency will be published this year.