Over the past week, the Guardian's 'Court Crisis' series has revealed the scale of dysfunction in England and Wales's justice system.
Barristers and judges were overworked. Victims are forced to drop charges after being cornered by an agonizing wait. Prisons are crumbling, with some inmates spending up to five years behind bars before being convicted.
The series reveals that the number of rape victims whose charges are dropped before trial has more than doubled in five years, while court backlogs mean innocent people are pleading guilty. .
On Thursday, the latest official statistics added further evidence to this damn mountain. The backlog of criminal cases awaiting disposal by the Crown Court in England and Wales reached a record high of 73,105 at the end of September. There are warnings that this number could reach 100,000 unless fundamental changes are made.
There is no doubt that this is necessary. The government acknowledges that even if the Crown Court were to operate at full capacity, the backlog would still increase.
This critical point has prompted respected senior officials to call for a review. Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas floated the idea of abandoning jury trials in some state trials, but it now appears that ministers are listening.
So what is the government proposing? The department has commissioned prominent former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal justice system.
The most high-profile proposal asks him to consider an entirely new type of criminal court. In other words, an “intermediate court'' will exist between the magistrate and the national court, and the need for jurors in trials, which had previously been held in either court, will become unnecessary. Over 70 Royal Courts in England and Wales.
These intermediate courts, combined with proposals to give magistrates more powers to deal with crimes of a more serious nature, could mean that the role of juries in criminal justice in England and Wales is on the verge of retreat.
The jury system has probably been established in England for about 1,000 years. Jury trials are often referred to as the cornerstone of the justice system, and any attempt to reduce their role should be seen as a significant change.
Concerned groups, from lawyers to barristers, judges to victims' rights campaigners, cautiously welcomed the intermediate court proposal.
The judges called it “sensible,” but lawyers said they were not convinced the idea was a “silver bullet” to solve the problem. The Law Society said building such a system would in itself take time and money, and that resources would be better spent fixing existing systems.
And this is something all parties seem to agree on – more money is needed, and a lot of it. Victim Support said the review comes at a time when funding for services supporting victims is being cut.
Katie Kempen, the charity's chief executive, said: “We need fundamental reform, but it would be short-sighted to think this crisis will be resolved without serious investment in court staff, infrastructure and victim services.” said.
Lawyers said that if available resources, such as human resources, infrastructure and funding, should be funneled into existing court structures.
But the pleas come as Premier Rachel Reeves warns that the country's finances are in dire straits. We need to come up with billions of pounds just to keep public services running. In the current circumstances, it seems unlikely that the government will deliver further benefits to the criminal justice system.
