Crime: An Overview

The Criminal Justice System and the Leveson Review

On 9 July 2025, the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, published the much-anticipated part 1 of the Leveson report. With 45 recommendations presented to Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, the 388-page report on the criminal courts declares that a “radical and essential package” of measures is required to prevent total collapse of the system.

The timing of its publication was significant for a variety of reasons: 2025 saw the caseload for the crown court backlog reach a peak of 76,957 cases, an 11% increase from a year prior; the backlog in the magistrates’ court reached 310,304 cases; and trials in the crown court are being listed in 2029 and beyond.

2025 also marked the 800^th anniversary of the reissue of the Magna Carta, which established the principle of the right to a trial by one’s “lawful judgement of his peers”, which evolved into the modern concept of a jury trial. Yet the recommendations by Sir Brian that caused the most controversy relate to the restriction or removal of trial by jury. Under the new proposals, unlike the current right of a defendant charged with an either-way offence to elect a trial by jury, a defendant charged with an either-way offence that carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment would be electing for a judge to decide whether the trial is by jury or by the newly created Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD) – consisting of a judge and two magistrates.

Additionally, the report recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, citing eligible cases to be defined by their “hidden dishonesty or complexity” that is outside the understanding of the general public.

Other recommendations include: the re-classification of some either-way offences as triable only in the magistrates’ court; greater use of out-of-court resolutions; and increasing credit for an early guilty plea from 33% to 40%.

Part 2 of the report, “the Efficiency Review”, is due to be published in the autumn of 2025 and will focus on how to improve the overall efficiency of the criminal courts via technology, inter-agency process reform, infrastructure and staffing.  

Inadequate technology and chronic underfunding have been long-standing issues within the criminal justice system. This was pulled into sharp focus in April 2025 after the Ministry of Justice detected a cyber-attack targeting the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems and online portal. The attack affected not only providers but also applicants, resulting in the theft of highly sensitive data.

The impact on legally aided criminal defence firms has been severe, causing significant delays in payments, additional administrative hurdles, and increased financial strain on firms already struggling with the sector-wide underfunding.

The recent spate of widely publicised miscarriages of justice, including that of Andrew Malkinson, Peter Sullivan, Oliver Campbell and the Post Office Horizon scandal coincided with the Law Commission’s 700-page consultation paper on reforming the criminal appeals process to make it easier for people to get wrongful convictions overturned. The failings in the Malkinson case led to the resignations of Helen Pitcher, the former chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and Karen Kneller, the Commission’s chief executive, and have left public and sector confidence in the criminal appeals process at an all-time low. Indeed, one of the Law Commission’s proposals is for the CCRC to be subject to an inspectorate.

Since its inception in 1997, the CCRC has rejected more than 97% of applications from people who claim to have been wrongfully convicted. To address this, the Law Commission’s proposals include replacing the stringent “real possibility” test, which currently requires the CCRC to refer a case to the Court of Appeal only if there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, or sentence would not be upheld. Rather than requiring it to predict the court’s response, the new test would focus on the CCRC’s own view of the case as to whether a conviction may be unsafe. The Law Commission also criticised the compensation system, which currently leaves 93% of applicants whose convictions are overturned with no compensation.

Finally, a shocking new record was set for the most arrests at a single event since 1961, following the Palestine Action ban protests. In total, 522 people were arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for “displaying an item (often placards) in support of a proscribed organisation (Palestine Action)”. This means that more people were arrested for offences in just one day than have ever been arrested under terror legislation in an entire year in the UK. 

These arrests, coupled with the widespread ripple of the anti-migrant protests (and counter protests) originating at the Bell Hotel in Epping, will challenge the Labour government to once again address how increased police powers and legislation can be balanced against overcrowding in prisons and an under-resourced criminal justice system.

Legal Developments

Labour’s “Safer Streets Mission” announced last year will be enshrined through the Crime and Policing Bill 2025, now in its second reading in the House of Lords. It aims to target systemic issues in antisocial behaviour and community policing, and address knife crime and violence against women and girls. “Assaulting retail workers”, “possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm” and “cuckooing” are some of the new offences created by the Bill.

A new offence specifically targeting “administrating a harmful substance” (ie, spiking) will replace the outdated provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, creating a single offence. An either-way offence, it will apply in circumstances where someone unlawfully gives or causes another person to take a harmful substance, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy them.

The Online Safety Act 2023 is now well established in England and Wales, although this year, the focus has shifted to the enforcement of the Act’s Child Safety Rules. This places legal obligations on platforms to protect children from harmful content, including pornography, self-harm, bullying and hate speech. The platforms must now use “highly effective age assurance” such as facial scans and photo ID checks to prevent children accessing harmful content. Enforcement will fall on Ofcom, the formal regulator for online safety, who will have the ability to investigate non-compliance and impose fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. They will also be able to hold companies and senior managers (where they are at fault) criminally liable if the provider fails to comply with Ofcom’s enforcement notices.

Sentencing

Measures to tackle the prison overpopulation crisis continue to be introduced. The most recent plan, unveiled in May 2025 by the Lord Chancellor, and expected to be legislated in September 2025, includes early release of offenders on completion of work, training or education assignments and demonstration of good behaviour. Exemptions for those sentenced to sexual, terrorism and serious violence would still apply.

The abolishment of short prison sentences and tougher community punishments will also feature, including widespread powers and flexibility to impose fines, seize assets and introduce bans on travel, attending sports matches, pubs and music events for a wide range of offences.

The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 received Royal Assent in June, blocking certain guidelines from coming into effect if they would mandate or risk differential treatment based on personal characteristics such as race, religion, or ethnicity, in relation to pre-sentence reports. This came as a direct result of the Sentencing Council’s earlier updated guidelines that recommended courts “normally consider” ordering a pre-sentence report (PSR) for offenders based on certain personal characteristics (including ethnicity, religion and pregnancy).

To achieve greater consistency and draw focus on the impact it can have on complainants, definitive Sentencing Guidelines have now been introduced for blackmail. Previous case law on sentencing blackmail offences emphasised the relationship between the amount of money demanded and the victim’s means, the psychological harm caused and the nature of the menaces. The guidelines now introduce the use of violence and sophisticated planning as factors placing the offender in the highest culpability category. The level of distress and nature of the property demanded still feature – now under the level of harm caused – with an added “widespread public impact of the offence” included in category 1 of harm.

New sentencing guidelines were also introduced for both kidnap and false imprisonment offences, which reflect the full spectrum of harm inflicted (both physical and psychological), acknowledging that the latter often occurs in domestic abuse cases.