CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, has expressed its support for the establishment of intermediate criminal courts, but under the condition that fundamental issues surrounding funding, recruitment, training, and courtroom capacity are addressed.

The proposal for intermediate courts, as outlined in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, has been generally well-received by CILEX’s criminal law members. The new courts would hear cases that are too serious for magistrates’ courts but do not warrant the attention of the Crown Court. These cases would be presided over by a judge and two magistrates.

While CILEX acknowledges the potential benefits of swifter justice, it also notes that its members are divided on whether the change will deliver better outcomes for victims. The institute has called for “assurances and safeguards” to ensure that access to justice is preserved or enhanced. Additionally, CILEX highlighted the value of jury trials, which have been shown to offer a more equitable and just conviction process.

If magistrates in intermediate courts are granted the authority to issue sentences of over two years, they must possess appropriate qualifications. This could include years of experience in the magistrates’ court or legal experience such as working as a paralegal or completing a Level 3-6 legal qualification.

The shortage of magistrates, whose numbers have halved since 2010/11, calls for increased investment in recruiting more staff. Additionally, adequate legal aid funding and investments in courtroom facilities and staff training are crucial.

Many criminal law practitioners do not expect intermediate courts to ease their workload; some believe these courts could actually make their jobs more difficult. Initiatives like pilot programs and pre-rollout training are recommended to help alleviate the impact on already overburdened practitioners and firms.

Expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers is opposed, as it would merely shift serious trials, which should be heard in the Crown Court, to the magistrates’ court backlog, ultimately harming both defendants and victims.

Broader issues such as difficulties in recruiting and retaining lawyers, a lack of funding for court spaces, and failure to enforce service level agreements with third-party providers further impede the efficiency of courts.

Moreover, the number of sitting days does not accurately reflect the time spent in court. The number of hours courts sit per day has decreased from 3.6 hours in 2017 to 2.8 hours in 2022.

“There are deep systemic issues failing victims, defendants, and all those working within the criminal justice system, leading to a backlog of over 73,000 cases. While the introduction of intermediate courts could help free up Crown Court time and provide faster justice, overcoming the challenges will require additional government funding and resources,” said Yanthé Richardson, President of the organization.