An influential committee of MPs has called the judicial appointment system ‘seriously wrong’ highlighting as ‘shocking’ the fact that only 1% of Crown Court judges are Black. Ahead of the government’s flagship reforms of the courts returns to the Commons, the Justice Committee echoed ‘significant concerns’ around the impact of the bill on Black and Ethnic Minority defendants. You can read the report here.
‘The Committee shares the significant concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the bill, particularly in relation to race,’ commented the committee’s chair Andy Slaughter. ‘It is shocking that only 1% of Crown Court judges are Black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. The persistence of such stark underrepresentation demonstrates that efforts to date have failed to deliver meaningful change. The Government must take action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary and set out a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035.’
MPs quoted the justice secretary David Lammy’s own landmark 2017 review of race and the justice system which found that juries were ‘one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where Black and Ethnic Minority defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes’. Black defendants – as well as older defendants and female defendants – opt for trial at the Crown Court at higher rates than other groups:
- In 2022, 26% of Black defendants elected for trial in the Crown Court, compared to 19% Mixed ethnicity, 17% Asian, 17% Other ethnicity, and 15% White defendants.
- In 2022, ages 30 to 69 years elected at rates between 19–23%, whilst ages 15 to 29 elected at rates between 5–16%.
- In 2021, 20% of female defendants elected compared to 14% of male defendants.
David Lammy’s review pointed out the higher rate for election were ‘due to a lack of trust in the criminal justice system, including magistrates’. ‘It acknowledges that the Lammy Review found that the lack of diversity among those who wield power within the criminal justice system causes mistrust, and notes that certain cohorts may perceive the removal of the right to elect more negatively, namely Black defendants, female defendants, and older defendants.’
According to Andy Slaughter, the Courts and Tribunals Bill represents ‘the most significant change to the criminal courts in more than half a century’ and on that will ‘fundamentally reshape how justice is delivered in England and Wales’. ‘The Committee recognises the urgency of the Crown Court crisis, with victims waiting years for justice as outstanding cases rise to 80,000, with listings for 2030,’ Slaughter said. However he pointed out that Bill was introduced without a formal response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review, without pre-legislative scrutiny by his own committee and with ‘some potential unintended consequences’. ‘Given the contested nature of the reforms, it is difficult to understand why a broader consensus within Parliament and beyond was not sought before the bill was introduced,’ he added.
MPs were ‘not convinced’ the magistrates’ court would be able to cope with the anticipated increase in caseload. The target of reaching 21,000 magistrates by 2029 was ‘unrealistic’. The decline in the number of magistrates and legal advisers was ‘part of a long-term trend which we do not believe can be reversed simply because the government has decided that allocating more cases to the magistrates’ court is the preferred solution to the crisis in the Crown Court’.
Whilst recognising the scale of the Crown Court backlog, the report called on ministers to set out ‘in much more detail than it has done so far, that the plan to expand capacity in the magistrates’ court is deliverable’. The report found a ‘lack of reliable data’ on the number of cases that likely to be retained in the magistrates’ court because of the removal of the right to elect for Crown Court trial. The bill’s impact assessment predicted that the removal would result in 16,000 fewer Crown Court sitting days per year. This is based on the assumption that ‘around 30% of 2024 triable either way receipts… elect to the Crown Court’.
MPs recommended that, given the proposals to increase the complexity and seriousness of the magistrates’ courts’ caseload, the Government should consider delaying the introduction of any changes to the appeals process. The bill would fundamentally change the magistrates’ courts appeals process. Rather than a full rehearing, the Crown Court would hear appeals only on the specific grounds for which permission has been granted. According to MPs, appeals from the magistrates’ court represent ‘a small and declining proportion of overall Crown Court receipts’, with only 0.4% of magistrates’ court decisions appealed in 2025.
‘The Ministry of Justice’s own data does not support the premise that appeals make a material contribution to the Crown Court backlog, and we are not persuaded that this proves a sufficient justification for the scale of reform proposed,’ the MPs said. ‘Whilst we recognise the impact that a rehearing can have on victims and witnesses, the high proportion of successful appeals suggests that the current right to a rehearing, which allows for both factual and legal issues to be reconsidered, plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes.’ MPs called for a delay on any change pending the Law Commission’s own review.
MPs called on ministers to amend the legal aid means test in the magistrates’ court so that anyone charged with an either-way offence with the possibility of a sentence of 12 months or more in custody is subject to the same threshold that would apply if the case were tried in the Crown Court. The threshold in the Crown Court is £37,500, whereas in the magistrates’ court, there is an annual upper gross income threshold of £22,325.
