header-logo header-logo

Barristers reject Leveson plans

30 July 2025
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Criminal barristers have firmly rebuffed Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals to restrict jury trials and move a tranche of cases to a judge sitting with two magistrates

A seven-day snapshot survey commissioned by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and conducted by Professor Katrin Hohl, City of St George’s, University of London, received a weighty response, with 2,029 criminal barristers taking part.

In her Monday Message this week, CBA chair Mary Prior KC said 93% opposed removing the right to appeal a judge’s decision to move a case to the new Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD) rather than offer a jury trial, and 78% opposed judge-only trials for complex and serious fraud.

Some 92% and 91%, respectively, opposed allowing CCBD cases to include sexual offences against children, and sexual offences against adults.

84% opposed the removal of a defendant’s automatic right to appeal against conviction from the magistrates’ court, and 86% were against CCBDs hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including stalking and voyeurism.

Sir Brian’s 388-page Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, published last month, proposed that defendants facing a maximum sentence of two years or less be able to opt out of jury trials and instead be heard by a judge and two magistrates—a new court division, the CCBD. He suggested defendants lose the right to an automatic right to appeal and that jury trials be dispensed with for serious and complex fraud cases.

Asked for their top two priorities for the justice system, 82% of CBA members said increasing Crown Court sitting days, and 71% said increasing court efficiency by ensuring prisoners reach court in time, Wi-Fi, audio and video equipment works and any interpreters required are present. 27% said Crown Court judges should have a background in criminal law, and 10% voted to fix the leaks, lifts and other building disrepairs.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll