Sir Brian Leveson's Keynote Address
Financing Justice
29th June 2026
I am delighted to contribute to this excellent series Justice For All which, as a principle, fits perfectly with the beliefs that I have tried to follow throughout the 55 years that I have practiced law and, in particular, in the nearly 35 years that I sat on the bench from the start as an Assistant Recorder to my final appointments as President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice.
This, the last in the series, is entitled Financing Justice but if you believe that you are about to hear advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to novel ways of raising money for justice you will be disappointed. The rubric is the role of finance in enabling justice through social impact investment, technology adoption in law enforcement and the creation of sustainable models for system reform. I hope you will not mind if I change the order and first discuss models for system reform which will be sustainable, then technology adoption in law enforcement and finally social impact investment.
First a model for system reform. But is that necessary? Forgive me if I try to explain. It is important because many (including the bar) and many others think it is not; I have no doubt that they are wrong.
In 2015, I published a Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings, the Terms of Reference of which did not permit legislative change but Chapter 10, headed Out of Scope, raised concerns previously argued by Lord Roskill in relation to Fraud Trials in 1986, some 40 years ago and Lord Justice Auld in 2001 – 25 years ago. In 2019, in a valedictory when I retired as President of the Queen’s Bench Division, I reflected on the state of the criminal justice system. I spoke of areas of real progress. However, I also anticipated that many of the challenges facing the criminal justice system at the time would persist and become increasingly difficult to address.
Seven years on, I have no doubt that the criminal justice in England and Wales is now facing a real crisis. The figures are stark. Recently published Ministry of Justice figures show that the outstanding criminal caseload in the Crown Courts stands at 80,061 cases. This is more than double the figure in 2019. Over 22,000 of those cases have been open for over a year. To such extent as there has been any reduction, it is a consequence of dealing with low hanging fruit: when they are actually listed for trial, many assaults on emergency workers, now triable in the Crown Court end up as guilty pleas and in this building those cases are being dealt with. Further, these are now being charged as common assault. But the longer cases are still horrendously delayed. Some courts are listing into 2029 and 2030. The aphorism ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is entirely apt.
How has this problem arisen? One major factor has been prolonged resource constraint, coupled with growing inefficiency. Analysis published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2025 showed that in 2025/26, real-term day-to-day spending by the MoJ is set to be 14% lower than in 2007/08. No area of justice is more overlooked than criminal justice. The consequences are clear: fewer available courts, a considerable maintenance backlog in the court estate, and a smaller and less experienced workforce. Inefficiencies experienced in the criminal courts have been exacerbated by the disconnect between different agencies within the criminal justice system. In England and Wales, criminal justice is delivered through a number of system partners including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the defence community, the courts, the judiciary, prisons and probation. Despite dedicated workforces, each of these systems is facing their own individual complex challenges, and too often, are not working as cohesively as they should.
A second factor is the increasing complexity of criminal law and procedure all of which were aimed at improving the quality of justice. I often recall my experience in 1971, when I could conduct two trials in a single day. This was a time when there were few, if any, solicitors present in police stations, no PACE framework, no disclosure requirements, no special measures, no interpreters or intermediaries, and none of today’s technology. Over the past four decades, reforms have significantly improved fairness and safeguards – but they have also added layers of complexity. Consider developments in disclosure, the expansion of digital and forensic evidence, in the form of cell site analysis and communications data, body worn cameras, CCTV, ANPR and data systems generally. Include the greater protections for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. All this works to increase the time required to prepare and try cases. These changes are important, but, taken together, they have come at a cost. That cost is now longer trial times and cases now moving slower through the system.
The increase in the open caseload has also been aggravated by significant unforeseen events that have disrupted the normal workflow and patterns of the system, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. These events severely limited capacity for jury trials, which as a consequence has increased the proportion of the most complex cases in the open caseload.
Make no mistake. This matters. Not least because of the impact in human terms. Justice is not an abstract principle but is instead a fundamental one about real people. The impact of delays on court users: victims, witnesses and defendants are profound. Many victims disengage from the process altogether. Memories fade, confidence erodes, and evidence weakens over time. Equally, many defendants are subject to economic and psychological impacts whilst awaiting trial. For example, defendants on remand may not be able to work, apply for new jobs or travel. The uncertainty places immense strain on relationships, families, and mental health. We must also recognise that some defendants will seek to game the system by encouraging delay in the hope that the case will collapse: they will then admit their guilt on the fifth or sixth appearance not, as before, at the first or second. All this takes court time to resolve.
Unsurprisingly, wider public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system has declined. The Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that confidence in the courts’ ability to deal with cases promptly has fallen significantly – from 52% in 2009 to 43% in 2024.
A functioning system underpins public confidence in the rule of law, social order and stability. When it fails, crimes are not dealt with effectively, trust in institutions declines, and the social and economic costs grow. Bringing the problem to the City of London, the export of financial and other commercial services from this country requires there to be an effective criminal justice system to police bad practice.
That is the background to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts which, in Part I, addressed structural reforms and, in Part II, structural inefficiencies across the system. In all, I made 180 recommendations that aim to improve the criminal courts. These recommendations interact and are designed not only to improve the systems that feed into the criminal justice jurisdiction but also to positively impact the behaviour of those involved. I believe that only through the combined impact of these recommendations involving more money, structural reform and greater efficiency – pulling all three levers – can steps be taken to address the challenges that are being faced. This package of reforms much be looked at as a whole: it is an across-the-board series of recommendations rather than a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.
The purpose of this speech is not to analyse the structural proposals I made or the criticisms of them although I am happy to do so. Given modern complexity, trials take far longer than ever they did and in my view we need to prioritise our limited resources to ensure that everyone gets a fair trial within a reasonable time. That is simply not happening and more money alone will not do it: we don’t have the courts, the judges or the lawyers to address the ever increasing challenges of violence against women and girls, mobile phone and shop theft let alone cyber crime and fraud.
On the subject of structural reform I add only this. In Canada, most defendants opt for trial by judge alone: it is far quicker and there is a reasoned judgment at the end. Nobody has ever suggested that rape trials should be conducted without a jury but in the youth court, they are tried by DJMCs alone: some of the same DJMCs sit in the Crown Court and try similar allegations of rape: they take twice as long. What is important is that the thrust of what I proposed is adopted to find ways to rebalance the threshold of cases which demand our most important but time-consuming asset – trial by jury.
In Part II, I recommended a package of efficiency measures to ensure that cases are prepared, managed and resolved expeditiously and fairly through the proportionate and effective use of time and resources. Systemic inefficiency creates its own significant barrier to the administration of justice and I set out recommendations designed to improve case management, incentivise inter-agency collaboration, strengthen local leadership and develop a more experienced and responsive workforce. I welcome the Government’s progress on this efficiency package. First, the appointment of a senior official as second Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice to co-ordinate the activities of all the different actors in criminal justice – the police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts, prisons and probation. Critically, this also includes the Department of Health and Social Care ensuring that those with mental health needs are correctly identified and, where appropriate, diverted from the criminal justice system. Equally important is the collaboration with the Judiciary on a national listing framework, increasing the use of technology through investment in Artificial Intelligence tools, the focus on improving Prisoner and Escort Custodial Services, and the introduction of the case coordinator function in every Crown court centre.
This brings me to the second strand of this part of the lecture series: technology adoption in law enforcement. I have already mentioned that criminal justice now increasingly depends on technology in the form of body worn cameras, CCTV, communications data and data generally. These increase complexity but also generate problems in delivery of evidence. Systems don’t communicate with one another and, too often, the evidential data produced does not work with the technology in court. That is a problem that can and must be addressed but the adoption of technology goes far wider than that.
Quite apart from the way in which evidence is collected and presented, I believe that making full use of available technology is critical to improving efficiency. I start with remote participation the use of which should be expanded. It should be used for first hearings in the magistrates’ courts and for preliminary hearings in the Crown Court. This reduces the need to transport defendants who, because of pressures in the prison system, are often held on remand many miles from the court and risk being late and causing delays. It cuts logistical costs, and eases pressure on transport services. Having said that, trials themselves should, of course, remain in person although attendance for certain professional witnesses should be remote by default. At sentencing hearings, defendants on remand should be able to attend remotely, except where victim impact statements are being delivered.
That brings me to artificial intelligence and the place that it has in criminal justice where its use must be to strengthen and not undermine the principles of justice on which we all operate. In that regard, its advancement is to be welcomed provided it is accompanied by robust safeguards augmenting and not replacing high quality, fair and proportionate decision making. How can it be used?
First, it is a productivity tool. It can be adopted to support transcription of proceedings, translation (particularly where an interpreter is not available). It can be and is used in the preparation of pre-sentence reports assisting probation officers by summarising often lengthy interviews. It can be used to redact statements to remove protected or confidential data. Second, it can provide insight and analyse large volumes of data to identify key information. How can the terabytes of data seized in criminal investigations otherwise be searched? It can assist with disclosure obligations; search terms can be suggested by defence lawyers. Third, it can improve access to justice by improving listing and ensuring that necessary information is deployed to the right people.
Its fourth potential use, as a predictive tool, is much more difficult and raises serious ethical and practical concerns, not least because of potential biases within the black box. It may be valuable to help commercial views to be taken about civil litigation but, for me, in crime, this aspect of AI is one step too far: human decision making remains essential. It cannot replicate the human ability to exercise context, empathy, and nuanced judgement.
This brings me to the third pillar of Finance in Justice, social impact investment. This is an area not covered by the Independent Review and more falls into the purview of the Review conducted by Sir David Gauke whom I am delighted publicly to congratulate on his recent knighthood. I comment only as someone who has been concerned with criminal justice issues for some 55 years, recognising that there are offenders from whom the public must be protected for many years if not forever. But there are many offenders who, given the chance, can make good use of their lives. The critical words in that sentence are ‘given the chance’. We all know how limited public funding is – how prisons are stretched simply to keep prisoners detained in safe conditions with real impact on the availability of education, training and rehabilitation. We all know of the many invaluable charities that work tirelessly with offenders to improve their life chances. So I say to the City: what is your responsibility to improve our community and our society? It may be that the Sheriff did not anticipate that I would end with a plea to support this work whether by employment opportunities as best demonstrated by Lord Timpson or in other ways. We have been lucky in life: others have not had our chances yet out society would be much improved if we were able to reduce reoffending, assist reintegration and ensure that we provide the opportunity to others to contribute meaningfully to our community.
Reverting to the main thrust of what I have been saying. Criminal justice is in crisis and fine words and principles will not change that fact. We need to think seriously about how our justice system needs to cope with the modern world and its complexities. We need to find ways of ensuring that victims and witnesses, defendants and the public, can obtain redress from the criminal justice system in a fair, proportionate but also timely manner. At the moment, we are simply not doing that and with the intense and vital focus on violence against women and girls, on mobile phone and shop theft, on public order and, most important, on cyber crime and fraud, this problem is going to get worse not better. This is about delivering justice in a way that is fair, timely, and worthy of public trust.
If we fail to act, the consequences will continue to grow, delays will worsen, confidence will decline, and the cost to society will increase. But if we succeed, then we have the opportunity to restore a criminal justice system that is not only efficient, but effective, and one in which the public can once again have full confidence.
