Changes to jury trials and magistrates' powers
The bill would reshape criminal court proceedings in England and Wales. Defendants charged with offenses that can be tried in either a magistrates' court or the Crown Court would lose their right to choose a Crown Court trial. Magistrates would also gain the power to try cases carrying prison sentences of up to two years.
The scope of judge-only trials changed during the bill's passage through the Commons. According to the Hansard Society, ministers dropped a proposal to allow Crown Court trials without juries for cases expected to result in prison sentences of less than three years. The version debated by the Lords would still allow judge-only trials in some complex or lengthy cases, particularly those involving financial crime.
Schedule 1 would let the Secretary of State expand the list of offenses eligible for judge-only trials through secondary legislation. The Commons Justice Committee recommended narrowing that authority to allow only offenses involving dishonesty to be added.
The government did not adopt several proposals from Leveson's review. These included an intermediate court, consisting of a judge and two magistrates, for cases likely to result in prison terms of up to three years. Ministers also rejected his recommendations to make some offenses triable only by magistrates and to limit magistrates to cases with likely sentences of one year.
Different assessments of the backlog
Leveson, a retired senior judge, told peers he was "apprehensive" about whether the revised package would be sufficient because it did not address the large number of cases already awaiting trial. He cited a record backlog exceeding 80,000 cases, with 24,000 delayed for at least a year before trial, up 22% from the previous year.
The government's assessment was more optimistic. Modeling cited during the debate suggested that the Crown Court backlog would peak next year and then begin to decline. Justice Minister Lord Lemos said the measures would release enough Crown Court time to "turn the tide" on the backlog.
Lemos, the Labour Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, both opened the debate and delivered the government's response. Other speakers included Lord Bellamy, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Baroness Chakrabarti, Lord Garnier, Lord Jabbar, Lord Keen of Elie, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, Baroness Levitt, Lord Stace and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Evidence rules, appeals and other provisions
Alongside Leveson's work, the bill draws on the Law Commission's review of evidence in sexual offense prosecutions. It proposes changes to evidence and procedure in those cases, including a higher threshold for admitting evidence about sexual behavior.
Dr. Joanne Grenfell, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, welcomed that higher threshold during the debate. She cited a figure of 85% for rape survivors who do not report the offense to police.
Grenfell also raised concerns about the bill's removal of the automatic right to appeal from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court. She warned that vulnerable young people would be disproportionately affected because magistrates ordinarily hear youth-justice cases.
The legislation extends beyond criminal trials. The House of Lords Library briefing says it would repeal the Children Act 1989's presumption of parental involvement and alter leadership arrangements for courts and tribunals. Administrative provisions cover magistrates' expenses and clarify the naming of the Central Criminal Court.
Scrutiny and the next stage
The Hansard Society criticized the speed of the bill's final Commons stages. Report stage began at 3:30 p.m., but the timetable required it to end at 6 p.m. That gave MPs two and a half hours to examine dozens of government amendments that substantially changed the bill's central policy. Ruth Fox, the society's director, called for the bill to return to the Public Bill Committee.
At the Lords second reading, Labour peer Lord Rooker tabled an amendment seeking to delay committee stage until a minister publishes a statement listing the clauses, schedules and amendments that MPs had not had time to consider.
After the debate, the Conservatives indicated that they might make another attempt to remove the jury-trial reforms during the bill's passage through the Lords. Committee stage, when peers examine the legislation line by line, is scheduled to begin on November 10.
