Criminal justice at tipping point – why Wales needs a reset

Dr Huw Evans

Former Tory MP for Montgomeryshire, Craig Williams, and 14 others (including MS Russell George) have been charged with betting offences concerning the date of the 2024 general election.

Because of the number of defendants, two separate trial dates have been set: the first for September 2027, and the second for January 2028. The prosecutor said even those dates were ‘optimistic’.

This delay is not just unacceptable, it is disgraceful; and symptomatic of a criminal justice system in England and Wales that is in crisis. Devolution of justice is needed to begin to reverse the situation in Wales, as there would be an opportunity to start from a blank canvas.

The Leveson Review

Don’t just take my word for it. Sir Brian Leveson was commissioned by the incoming Labour government to conduct a review of the criminal justice system and in June 2025 he published his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1. Part 1 addresses criminal justice reform within the government set terms of refrerence. Part 2, still unpublished, will address system efficiency. Leveson says:

Criminal justice is in crisis…As of December 2024, there were over 75,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court. That is more than double the numbers in 2019, and trials are being listed as far ahead as 2029.

Leveson identifies several causes: sustained funding cuts leading to fewer and less well-maintained courts; a reduced and less experienced workforce; and inefficiencies between criminal justice agencies.

A further contributor is that the criminal law has grown more complex, with new procedures and evidence types like electronic data and DNA. In consequence jury trial duration has doubled since 2000.

Leveson’s recommendations

Leveson’s core recommendations are centred on reducing the Crown Court workload and making it function more efficiently.

Greater use of magistrates’ courts is encouraged so that cases are not sent to the Crown Court. This could be achieved by increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers and restricting defendants’ ability to elect crown court trial.

Abolishing the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court is also recommended; instead, an appeal could only proceed with permission from the Crown Court.

As to improving Crown Court efficiency, the most radical suggestion, and designed to reduce the number of jury trials, is the creation of a new category of Crown Court trial for medium-serious cases to be heard before a judge and two magistrates: i.e. removing the right to trial by jury in those cases.

Another attack on jury trial is to increase the number of judge-only trials: i.e. where a judge takes over from a jury and finds a defendant guilty or not guilty. Complex fraud cases are typically mentioned as suitable for judge-only trial.

Leveson also recommends improving Crown Court capacity by recruiting more judges and increasing the number of sitting days.

There are also recommendations to reduce the number of cases going to court, such as greater use of alternatives to court resolution like cautions or community-based resolutions.

Leveson Review deficiencies

The Leveson Review is inherently limited by its terms of reference. There is no overall questioning of the current magistrates’ courts and Crown Court structure. It centres on the Crown Court.

The role of the magistrates’ court and the lay magistracy is critically untouched, as is the ability of the magistrates’ court to take on the extra workload that will not now go to the Crown Court.  Delay is not confined to the Crown Court, the outstanding backlog in the magistrates’ court in March 2025 was just over 310,000 cases.

The number and accessibility of magistrates’ courts are not considered. Until cost saving induced court closures, magistrates’ courts could rightfully claim to dispense local justice and serve their immediate community.

That claim is often now no longer sustainable. For example, if an unemployed person without transport from Porth is charged with an offence in the Rhondda, their closest magistrates’ court is now either Cardiff or Merthyr Tydfil. Previously, before closures, they would have appeared before a magistrates’ court in the Rhondda or Pontypridd.

As justice is not devolved, the Leveson Review applies to England and Wales. Inevitably, things are viewed through an English lens.  The needs of Wales are not seen.

And Leveson’s own comments do not inspire confidence. He says that ‘investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis…The system is too broken. A radical and essential package…is therefore required to prevent [its] total collapse’.  But even then, Leveson says that success cannot be guaranteed.

Devolution of justice

Devolution of justice could change this, as it would enable the system to be overhauled. Access to justice is a fundamental part of the rule of law.

New models of delivery could be considered such as an integrated criminal justice system where there is no magistrates’ court /Crown court divide, and which is staffed by a wholly professional judiciary. There could be better placement of court centres to enable easier access for users. The court estate could be more integrated between the criminal and civil justice systems to improve efficiencies.

The criminal justice system does not often directly affect most people, unlike the NHS or education. As such, people are indifferent to what has happened. It is not because they don’t care. It just does not register. How else can it be explained why the system has got to the point where it is ‘broken’?

That indifference was most obviously seen with the Post Office Horizon scandal  It took a TV drama  to unleash the anger; yet the injustice was previously known and publicised.

The situation is a disgrace; as is, specifically, that Craig Williams and others will not be tried until late 2027/early 2028.

The situation is bad for defendants, victims, witnesses and wider society. Systemic dysfunction undermines the rule of law.

Devolution of justice to Wales would provide the opportunity to start again and allow for a fundamental review about how the system can deliver justice.