Courts and Tribunals Bill — Written evidence submitted by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (CTB40)

London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association Submission to the Select Committee relating to proposals contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill The London Court Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA) was founded in 1948 to represent criminal law solicitors throughout the Greater London area. There are over 800 members. The Officers of the Association are the President (who chairs the LCCSA’s Committee), the immediate Past President, the Junior and Vice Presidents, the Secretary, the Treasurer, the Media Officer and the Co-training Officers. The Committee meets once a month. The Association’s activities include: consulting with the Law Society, the Government, the Courts, the Police, the Legal Aid Agency and other organisations on any matter that may affect criminal lawyers; engaging in strategic litigation; lobbying politicians and the media by attending meetings, conferences and functions; providing criminal lawyers with the latest developments in legislation, case law and professional development; hosting an annual European Conference the focus of which is to share best practice and knowledge via presentations and to bring the legal profession together. The LCCSA supports reform of our criminal justice system to include measures to decrease the backlog of cases waiting to be tried. There are, however, proposed measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill which we strongly do not support: abolishing election in either way matters and curtailing the right to trial by jury (section 3); the proposed retrospective application of some of these changes (section 3); the increase in maximum sentencing powers in the magistrates’ courts (section 6); changes in appeals from magistrates courts (section 7). These proposed measures will not reduce the backlog - they will simply shift the problem elsewhere, namely to the magistrates’ courts and the newly created Crown Court Bench Division, plans for which have been subject to no modelling nor any considerations relating to resourcing and infrastructure. The backlog can only be reduced by a combination of investment and modernisation; this is what will take our justice system through the 21st century ensuring it is able to meet the unique technological and digital challenges of this era as well as other challenges. The arguments in favour of investment and modernisation are well documented, and we do not seek to repeat them here. They rely upon all participants in the criminal justice system being properly equipped to effect efficiency measures as part of a cohesive and nationwide strategy. What we do seek to do is to set out our concerns relating to the wider constitutional impact of the proposals in the sections referred to. Sections 1 and 3 - Removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury in either way offence and allowing judge only trials for either way offences in the Crown Court Bench Division The LCCSA opposes the proposals set out. Trial by jury acts as a significant safeguard in the criminal justice system enabling defendants who are charged with criminal offences to be judged by their fellow citizens: 12 “ordinary”, randomly selected individuals rather than appointed judges and/or officials who belong to an

elite and detached class. The jury also serves, in this context, to prevent the exercise of conscious and unconscious bias further protecting defendants, as well as protecting the state, in ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. These truisms are relevant in all cases tried by juries including “jury equity” cases when juries, representing the wider society from which they have been drawn, determine culpability or lack thereof and thus a defendant’s fate in both contexts. Conversely, the jury system - leaving fact finding to citizens - protects judges by facilitating their role as legal arbiter and distances them from being drawn into an inquisitorial role. Trial by jury also provides a tangible system in which citizens participate meaningfully in our democracy. This is of such significance, particularly in contemporary society as evidence demonstrates deep fractures within our society leading to social isolation and a distinct lack of trust in institutions that exercise power over citizens. Multifaceted causes have been at play in this regard, three of which have particular relevance. First, ever increasing class, racial, religious, socio-economic and other divides. Secondly, failings by the political class to act and promote the best interests of our society and its citizens – their acts very often tend to self-promote. Thirdly, a breakdown of trust in others, namely those who hold other forms of power and are entrusted to uphold the rule of law but do not, as well as a loss of faith in public bodies and state actors when their acts and/or omissions have led to grave miscarriages of injustices. Very recent examples include: the Post Office scandal, caused entirely by individuals in power who were responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people; the Andrew Malkinson case – a failed police investigation ultimately lead to his wrongful conviction (an Inquiry into the conduct of the police is currently underway) which was not properly investigated by the CCRC (as set out in Chris Henley KC’s Independent Review of the CCRC’s handling of the case1); the Peter Sullivan case – the appellate history calls into question, inter alia, the approach of the Court of Appeal in cases where it is evident justice has miscarried but there is a reluctance to quash “unsafe” convictions unless the appellant can prove they are innocent (which took Mr Sullivan 38 years to do). The jury system restores a much needed balance of power. The jury can be trusted to do the right thing - jurors take their civic duty extremely seriously. The jury system values citizens and reenforces what it means to be a citizen living in a democracy; it enables citizens to draw upon their valued and unique life experience alongside others - a collective of 12 different in many ways - and carry out important civic work. People have faith in the jury. This cannot and should not be underestimated. Any attempt to diminish this role in the manner proposed would undermine our democracy and have the clear and irredeemable effect of eroding the civic rights of every citizen, without providing any solutions to the current problems. Section 6 - the increase in maximum sentencing powers in the magistrates’ courts The LCCSA opposes the proposals set out for the same reasons as the Criminal Bar.2 Section 7 - The removal of the automatic right to appeal 1 See: https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/5/2024/10/henleyreport.pdf 2 See https://www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/The-CBAs-Nutshell-Guide-to-the-Courts-and-Tribunals-Bill-2026.p

The LCCSA opposes the proposals set out. Magistrates’ courts serve to ensure speedy justice in summary only and either way matters (when a defendant has elected summary trial) and operate without the additional safeguards found in the crown court which are not limited to the jury and include: the fact that experienced and often specialist prosecutors and defence practitioners - to include Treasury Counsel and Kings Counsel - work in the crown court; senior judges sit in the crown court; the crown court oversees a much more robust application of the disclosure regime; legal aid is more accessible and it is rare for a defendant to be without legal representation in the crown court (a large number of defendants do self-represent in the magistrates’ courts as legal aid is not available in all cases). The absence of these collective safeguards in the magistrates’ court means that the risk of justice miscarrying in the magistrates’ courts is far greater than in the crown court. Injustices that are not corrected damage lives and the rule of law. A right to appeal in such circumstances (from the magistrates’ courts to the crown court) as opposed to an appeal system which requires an applicant to seek leave/permission to appeal (as is operational from the crown court to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division), is paramount. Currently, a staggering 44% of appeals from the magistrates’ court to the crown court succeed which is a reflection of the fact that summary justice does not necessarily equate with actual justice and importantly that the current appeal system in the magistrates’ court works. There is no evidence that defendants are “gaming the system” when appealing. In all the circumstances, it would be wholly wrong to have an appeal system in the magistrates’ courts which mirrors the appeal system in the crown court. The mere suggestion reflects a complete lack of understanding of how magistrates’ courts operate - not underpinned by the range of safeguards in the crown court - and why there is a need for a guaranteed right to appeal. The added workload which would be introduced into the system is also of significance: judges in the Crown Court Bench Division would have to review grounds of appeal on the papers (like the Single Judge in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division) and provide written reasons for refusing permission to appeal and when an applicant seeks to challenge this decision (as is the position in the Court of Appeal which allows an applicant to renew their application to seek permission to appeal to the full Court of Appeal when leave to appeal has been refused by the Single Judge), the Crown Court Bench Division would be required to hear such appeals and before the actual appeal hearing itself. This will place a huge burden on the Crown Court Bench Division and in particular on judges. In this context, the proposals do not appear to take into account the critical roles, to include the role of assisting litigants in person, of the Registrar at the Court of Appeal and the very experienced Court of Appeal lawyers in crown court appeals before the Court of Appeal. Are similar roles to be created in the Crown Court Bench Division to aid with the administration of justice?

The LCCSA supports the broader submissions in relation to the proposals by APPEAL, the Criminal Appeals Lawyers’ Association (CALA), the Youth Practitioners’ Association (YPA) and the National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ).3 LCCSA 24 April 2026
3 See https://appeal.org.uk/submission-criminal-appeals-courts-and-tribunals-bill-march-2026/