Government Response to Independent review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1
Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1
Following the publication of Part 1 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts by Sir Brian Leveson (the ‘Review’) on 9 July 2025, the Government has announced that it will implement some of the recommendations to reform the criminal justice system. Though the announced measures do not include any specific changes to the youth justice system, some of them will impact children and young people involved in the system.
Details
The Review was introduced to address the current crisis the criminal justice system is facing with nearly 80,000 criminal cases still awaiting trial in the Crown Court. Part 1 of the Review sets out structural reforms to reduce pressure on the Crown Court by keeping more cases in the lower courts, while Part 2 will recommend how the system can operate more efficiently and swiftly. Part 2 will be published later in 2025.
In line with the Review’s recommendations, the Government has announced that it will introduce the following measures:
- Magistrates’ sentencing powers increase to 18 months, with the possibility to extend to 24 months if needed.
- The right to a jury trial will be left to the discretion of the court in most cases and will remain for indictable-only offences and those likely to receive over three years’ sentence.
- The automatic right to appeal in the Magistrates’ Court is replaced by a requirement that defendants apply for permission to appeal.
- Either-way offences (i.e. medium-serious cases) likely to attract 3 years or less will be dealt with by a judge alone in a new Crown Court Bench Division (‘CBDD’).
- The courts may allow a judge-only trial for a small number of serious cases, particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases.
- Criminal damage cases under £10,000 damage (up from £5,000) can be handled summarily.
Commentary
As mentioned in one of our earlier Legal Updates on this topic, the Review does not propose any specific changes to the youth justice system and neither do the announced measures by the Government. Some of these measures do not change the current situation for children and young persons. For example, the right to a jury trial remains unchanged: those under the age of 18 cannot elect trial by judge and jury for an either-way offence. Instead, unless the case falls into one of a few exceptional categories enabling a case to be sent to the crown court, the youth court must determine whether there is a “real prospect that a sentence in excess of two years detention will be imposed” if the child is convicted before deciding to send a case to the crown court. As a result, the number of children who receive jury trials is already minimal (see Sentencing Children and Young People Overarching Principles Definitive Guideline, para 2.8).
Although the Review recommended expanding the use of out-of-court resolutions (‘OOCRs’), the Government has not taken this forward at present. It has, however, committed to continuing to explore ways to prevent cases from going to court in the first place. This clearly has the potential to benefit children if implemented. For more information on the use of OOCRs in the youth justice system, access our Out of Court Resolutions Legal Guide here.
Encouragingly, the Government has indicated that it will consider simplifying the criminal records regime to make it clearer and more proportionate, with particular attention to offences committed during childhood. Hopefully this will be a priority for the Government given the difficulties people with criminal records for childhood offences continue to face and, in particular, the discrimination faced by children who turn 18 between the commission of their offence and conviction/caution.
Finally, the review does not comment specifically on whether the need to apply for permission to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the crown court will apply to children appealing the decisions of youth courts and we await separate guidance on this issue. Such a development would be concerning, particularly given continuing concerns over the lack of specialist training amongst advocates in the youth court.