header-logo header-logo

Judge or jury?

08 August 2025 / Lloyd Firth
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
227497
The Leveson review proposes mandatory judge-alone trials in serious & complex fraud cases: Lloyd Firth argues this runs counter to the interests of justice

Part 1 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, was published in July. Leveson was tasked by the Ministry of Justice with conducting a wide-ranging review of the criminal court system. Part 1 focuses on reform and proposes various radical changes to criminal procedure and the court system in response to the current criminal justice crisis, with over 77,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court and some trials listed for 2029.

This article focuses on Recommendation 44: that serious and complex fraud cases (defined by their hidden dishonesty or complexity that is outside the general public’s understanding) should be tried by a judge alone. Leveson recommends that the allocation decision be made by a judge at a preparatory hearing, effectively removing the right to jury trial for serious and complex fraud cases.

Less than persuasive?

Proposals for varying the right

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll