Independent Review of the Criminal Courts
Source: gov.uk (2025-10-07)

Former President of the Queen's Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, has been appointed to carry out an independent review into the criminal courts.

Sir Brian Leveson said:

I am pleased to contribute to the important task of seeking to address the very real difficulties facing the criminal justice system. A challenge of this scale requires innovative solutions and I look forward to making my recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in due course.

Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Terms of Reference

Context

The Crown Court caseload has risen substantially over recent years for complex reasons including the pandemic and an increase in the number of cases coming before the courts. The scale of cases entering the courts is now so great that, even with the Crown Court sitting at a historically high level, this would not be enough to make meaningful progress on reducing the outstanding caseload and bring down waiting times. Doing so will require bold thinking on the most appropriate and proportionate ways of dealing with cases before the courts, as well as increases in the efficiency of our criminal courts.

Some of these issues have been considered previously, both in Lord Justice Auld’s 2001 review of the criminal courts and Sir Brian Leveson’s 2015 report Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings. Most recommendations from the latter were implemented by 2016, but in light of increasing caseloads and the changed context since the pandemic, it is right that these issues are examined afresh.

The Lord Chancellor has therefore commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts which will consider the merits of longer-term reform and, with agreement of the Lady Chief Justice, review the efficiency and timeliness of processes (including those of partner agencies) in cases through charge to conviction/acquittal.

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to produce options and recommendations for a) how the criminal courts could be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, in light of the current pressures on the Crown Court; and b) how they could operate as efficiently as possible. This should include consideration of the processes of partner agencies where they impact the criminal courts. The review should lead to a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved.

Scope

The review should consider:

a. Longer-term options for criminal court reform, with the aim of reducing demand on the Crown Court by retaining more cases in the lower courts. This could include:
- The reclassification of offences from triable-either-way to summary only.
- Consideration of magistrates’ sentencing powers.
- The introduction of an Intermediate Court.
- Any other structural changes to the courts or changes to mode of trial that will ensure the most proportionate use of resource.
In relation to these reform options the review should consider:

The impacts any changes could have on how demand flows through the criminal courts.

The potential impacts of any structural changes on the fairness of proceedings, particularly the impact on court users such as witnesses and defendants, and how these could be mitigated where necessary.

The necessary enabling processes to ensure the most effective implementation of the options, for example the allocations process.

The implications for appeal routes of the various options.

Necessary changes to thresholds and mode of trial within relevant offence types.

The sequencing of any changes – for example, whether they should be brought in via a phased approach.

b. The efficiency and timeliness of processes through charge to conviction/acquittal. This should include:

Consideration of how processes through charge to conviction/acquittal could be improved to maximise efficiency. This includes looking at the processes of the courts but also those of partner agencies in the criminal justice system which affect the efficiency of the criminal courts.
- Consideration of how effectively previous recommendations – including those contained within the 2015 review Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings – have been implemented and if more could be done for these to successfully increase efficiency within the criminal courts.
Consideration of previous recommendations within the current context of challenges facing the criminal courts, and how these might be updated or built upon.
- Consideration of how new technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, could be used to improve the criminal courts.
In addition to the above, the review should make any other recommendations to tackle the outstanding caseload that emerge as a result of reviewing the options and evidence. The review should consider what can be learned from best practice in other jurisdictions and international comparators.

The review should not consider wider cross-system efficiencies where they do not relate to the efficiency of the courts. Although, as outlined above, the review will consider processes of partner agencies which affect the efficiency of the criminal courts.

It is important that this review complements other work that is currently ongoing which aims to improve the criminal courts. For example, the work of the Criminal Courts Improvement Group will continue, focusing on short term, operational improvements that can continue to be made whilst the independent review is underway.

As part of the review, relevant partners across the Criminal Justice System will be consulted and engaged to ensure any subsequent recommendations are both operationally viable and consider other ongoing or planned work to improve efficiency.

The review will respect the different roles and responsibilities of the executive and the independent judiciary in relation to the criminal courts.

The options and recommendations provided should take account of the likely operational and financial context at the time that they may be considered and implemented.

Expert Advisers

Five expert advisers have been appointed to support Sir Brian Leveson in delivering this important work. The five advisers bring together a wealth of experience and expertise within the Criminal Justice System. The Chair and the Expert Advisers will work closely to deliver the Review’s Terms of Reference. The advisers are:

Shaun McNally

Shaun has over 35 years’ experience working in the justice sector, including working with the senior judiciary, ministers and partnership working in criminal civil and family justice. He has previously been Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission and Chief Executive of The Legal Aid Agency . He has also held several senior roles within HMCTS including, Director of Crime, Director of Operations and Performance and Area Director for Cheshire and Merseyside.

David Ormerod

David Ormerod is a Professor of Criminal Justice at University College, London. He has been an academic lawyer for over 30 years. He has published widely on all aspects of criminal law, evidence and procedure. From 2010-2019 he was the Criminal Law Commissioner for England and Wales leading on all criminal law reform projects. He is a barrister, a Bencher of Middle Temple and also a Bencher of the Inns of Court of Northern Ireland. David has also been involved in delivering training for the Judicial College on criminal courses for almost 20 years.

Chris Mayer

Chris worked for 37 years within the Justice System across Criminal, Civil and Family Court Administration, Court HR, Finance and Policy Development. She was the Northern Circuit Administrator, Regional Director for the North West and former Chief Executive of Her Majesty’s Court Service working in partnership with the Judiciary. She was also a Director General within the Ministry of Justice. Since leaving the Civil Service she has worked as a consultant in Leadership Development and Coaching and has been a Non Executive Director within the NHS for 13 years, having spent three terms as interim Chair of two NHS Trusts

Jay Bangle

Jay Bangle is the Chief Technology Innovation Officer at TPXimpact, a digital transformation consultancy that has worked with a number of government departments before, including the HM Land Registry, Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as organisations and charities such as Blood Cancer UK, HSBC and several local councils.

At TPXimpact, Jay leads all technology and AI delivery. He helps organisations improve their services, experiences and outcomes with the responsible use of technology, including collaborating with senior officials to navigate the opportunities and ethical implications of AI. He has worked at TPXimpact for close to two years.

Before TPXimpact, Jay has held several roles in HMCTS over 5 years including Chief Technology Officer, where he was also a member of the CTO Council for UK Government.

Katie Atkinson

Katie Atkinson is a professor of Computer Science, Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Sustainability Research at the University of Liverpool. She has conducted foundational and interdisciplinary research on artificial intelligence for over 20 years, with her key area of research being the field of AI & Law.

Katie has published widely on the topic of developing explainable AI for law and has also worked on projects to transfer her research into industrial applications.

In 2019, Katie was named one of ten members of an expert advisory group to advise the senior judges of England and Wales on developments in AI. The AI advisory group consisted of prominent legal technology experts and judges, and was chaired by Richard Susskind. Since 2020 Katie has served as a member of the Lawtech UK Panel, a government-backed initiative to help transform the UK legal sector through technology, and in 2024, Katie was appointed to the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ).

Katie also holds the role of Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Artificial Intelligence and Law journal and President of The Foundation for Legal Knowledge-Based Systems (JURIX).

Reporting

The review will report on options for long-term reform by late Spring 2025, following up with findings on court efficiency by Autumn 2025.

Engagement

Sir Brian Leveson and the Review team would like to thank all respondents to the call for evidence, which has now closed.

Contact

The Independent Review can be contacted by email: xxx@xxx.xx (mailto:xxx@xxx.xx)

or by post:

Independent Review of the Criminal Courts9.10, 102 Petty FranceLondonSW1H 9AJ

Publications
- Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-1)
Related pages
- Courts reform to see quicker justice for victims and keeps streets safe - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/courts-reform-to-see-quicker-justice-for-victims-and-keeps-streets-safe)