Written submissions to the Review have risen to nearly 900, emanating from a wide range of agencies, individuals and organisations involved in the Criminal Justice System, together with a broad cross section of the public. Lord Justice Auld is considering all submissions and has, as yet, reached no final conclusions on any of them.

In addition, Lord Justice Auld has continued his intensive round of consultations begun in January, involving further meetings with groups and individuals. He chaired two special conferences in September, one attended by representatives of the judiciary, magistrates, legal practitioners, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, academics and senior government officials, and one in Cambridge attended by judges and jurists from a number of other European jurisdictions.

Lord Justice Auld will continue to consult in October and November, and will also visit Northern Ireland and North America.

In his consideration of the submissions Lord Justice Auld will keep in mind the civil and family jurisdiction of the courts and the implications of the European Convention of Human Rights. Underlying all his final recommendations will be the need to improve the public perception of, and confidence in, the criminal courts and the criminal justice system as a whole. In particular, Lord Justice Auld is considering how better the public can be educated and informed of the way in which the system and its various parts work, and how to overcome the difficulties in providing for the various and often sharply conflicting interests. Lord Justice Auld has reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of lay magistrates should be preserved, for those cases carrying a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment which continue to reach the courts.

Lord Justice Auld hopes to submit his final report by the end of the year.

Submissions made to the Review have indicated:

Management of the Criminal Courts within the Criminal Justice System

• Recognition of much of the work done within Government to strengthen co-operation between the courts and other criminal justice agencies. But there are questions over the effectiveness of current mechanisms for translating national statements of purpose into local action. Some have suggested there is a need for a simpler and more broadly based line of overall direction at national and local levels.



• A widespread view that there is a need to provide the courts and all the agencies with common information and communications technology. Some have suggested that the management of such an integrated information technology system might most effectively be undertaken by a central agency responsible to a strategic body with a membership wide enough to embrace the interests of all those with a stake in the criminal justice system.

Structure of the Court System

• Considerable support for unifying and simplifying the management of the Crown Court and Magistrates' Courts. A number of respondents argued for the creation of a single criminal court supported by a unified and nationally funded administration, but within a structure which ensures a significant element of local control and accountability at both the summary and indictable offences level.

Jurisdictional Issues

• A widely held view that the criminal courts deal with much work that could be dealt with outside the Criminal Justice System altogether. Examples suggested include television and vehicle excise licence and council tax cases. Other possibilities are the greater use of fixed penalties or the introduction of a form of conditional cautioning in less serious cases in which the defendant is prepared to accept guilt and/or to compensate the victim. Other have suggested that further investigation be undertaken of forms of restorative justice, such as those established in Scotland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Some have proposed that some of the present lengthy and expensive cases of fraud and other financial misbehaviour could be removed from the criminal courts to a regulatory process.



• At the summary justice level, Lord Justice Auld is satisfied that there is a sound case for retaining both lay and stipendiary magistrates (now District Judges) and their present jurisdiction. A number of respondents have, however, suggested ways in which public confidence in the lay magistracy could be further enhanced, by reforms to the system of appointments and/or the establishment of a national training college.



• At the level above summary jurisdiction there has been wide support for the establishment of an intermediate tier of jurisdiction to deal with some of the less serious offences currently categorised as either-way. It has been suggested this might take the form of a District Judge sitting with two lay magistrates and should be combined with the removal of magistrates' power of committal for sentence. Whether or not Lord Justice Auld recommends such an intermediate tier, he is considering proposals as to the defendant's right to opt for jury trial in either-way cases.



• For the more serious cases, Lord Justice Auld has provisionally concluded that trial by judge and jury continues to offer the most appropriate means of determining guilt or innocence. Many have, however, suggested that juries should be made more widely representative of the community by reducing the categories of ineligibility and disqualification, and the scope for excusal from jury service.



• It has been suggested that there are particular difficulties encountered by juries in complicated cases. There are suggestions that arrangements for jury trial might be modified in cases of fraud, other cases where the exercise for the fact-finder is one of analysis of technical or otherwise complex evidence (rather than assessment of reliability or credibility of witnesses) and cases involving young children as defendants or principal witnesses.



• There is recognition of a general need for early identification of the issues at trial, and for tailoring of the evidence accordingly. Some suggest that, in all but the simplest trials, the jury could be provided at the start of the trial with an agreed written statement of the issues and summary of the agreed facts. At the end the judge could direct the jury more concisely, with less reference to the law and evidence than is now conventional, and in a manner that would better assist the jury in reaching a properly structured and logical decision.



• There is a widespread view that cases should start and finish in the court or at the jurisdictional level where they are to be tried. It is suggested that if this could be achieved, there would be no need for committals for trial or sentence, or for a higher court to which a case had been allocated referring back parts of it to a lower court.

Case Management

• Improvements in case management are regarded by many as a priority, though there is recognition that there are limits to what can be achieved in a process which involves so many agencies and individuals, and which concerns the proof of and response to allegations of criminality. Respondents to the Review have suggested a number of options for change:



• the effective setting and monitoring of common aims and budgets at national and local levels;



• a strengthening of the Crown Prosecution Service to enable it to assume a more authoritative and efficient role in the preparation and conduct of trials at all levels, and to protect the interests of victims;



• a system of incentives and sanctions structured to favour early and proper preparation of defence cases;



• improvement of mutual advance disclosure by the prosecution and defence so as to achieve early identification of the issues and shorter trials;



• a more flexible approach to plea and directions and other pre-trial hearings so as to have recourse to them only when necessary;



• a listing system designed to provide more advance certainty as to trial dates in the interests of avoiding inconvenience and expense to victims and witnesses;



• A change of culture among legal practitioners, possibly encouraged by their own codes of professional conduct, to achieve earlier and more effective preparation of cases.

Procedure and Evidence


• Those who recommend the establishment of a unified criminal court also urge the introduction of a comprehensive and simply expressed procedural code common, so far as appropriate, to all the different jurisdictional levels.



• There is support for a move away from the technical rules of admissibility of evidence, to a system under which tribunals of fact gave evidence the weight they felt it deserved.

---

Return to the Progress Report index page