1. The Government regards Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts as a major contribution to its continuing programme of reform of the criminal justice system. The Government's aim is to provide a criminal justice system which is - and is seen by the public to be - modern, in touch with the community, efficient and fair.
2. It is vital that the various agencies should work together to eliminate unnecessary delays; increase the number of offences which result in an offender being brought to justice; deal more effectively at every stage with persistent offenders; and provide a better service to victims and witnesses. Reforms to the police service which are now under discussion should enable more offenders to be apprehended, and the proposals of the Halliday review of sentencing (which are currently the subject of consultation) are designed to make sentences more effective. These reforms would be complemented by Sir Robin Auld's recommendations, which he considers would enable criminal justice to be more efficiently dispensed without sacrificing the fundamental requirement of fairness.
3. Sir Robin Auld makes some radical and far-reaching recommendations, some of which would involve making changes to longstanding structures or procedures. Such changes will need to be carefully considered, in the light of the fullest possible range of comment, not only from those who work in the criminal justice system but also from the public at large. The period for comment will end on 31 January 2002. The Government proposes to set out its conclusions on the recommendations in a White Paper (which might also cover the review of sentencing on which consultation has been conducted over the summer) with a view to introducing legislation when Parliamentary time allows.
4. Whilst we are inviting views and comments on all of Sir Robin Auld's recommendations, in a few cases we can already see difficulties in proceeding with them. An example is the proposal for altering the make-up of juries to allow for ethnic minority representation in certain cases, where we consider that the principle of random selection should not lightly be abandoned. There are some areas, such as Specialist Courts or sittings, which are not the subject of recommendations but for which we have indicated support in our Manifesto and in our policy paper Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead . These will be pursued alongside the development of policy in the light of the consultation on Sir Robin Auld's recommendations.
5. The review's main recommendations are outlined below, together with an indication of the Government's existing position, where appropriate.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Establishment of a unified criminal court structure and a new, intermediate tier
6. Lay magistrates and District Judges should continue to exercise summary justice. For more serious cases, trial by judge and jury should generally remain. But the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, which have developed separately, should be unified into a single structure consisting of three Divisions.
7. The Government in its paper Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead , published in February of this year, noted the widespread support for a unified court structure as then reported by Sir Robin Auld.
8. The three divisions would be the Crown Division (constituted as the Crown Court is now), the Magistrates' Division (constituted as now) and a new, intermediate District Division, constituted by a professional judge and two lay magistrates. Cases would be allocated by the court to summary jurisdiction, jury trial or to the District Division according to their seriousness.
9. The District Division would deal with cases which could attract a sentence more severe than that which could be handed down by the summary court (at present six months' imprisonment) but which were not likely to attract a sentence of - perhaps - more than two years. A judge and two lay magistrates would deal with District Division cases as equal partners in reaching verdicts, though the judge would deal with points of law, and sentence. The judge would usually be a District Judge, but could be a Recorder, a Circuit Judge or even a High Court Judge if cases were unusually complex but still likely to attract a sentence within the court's jurisdiction. Cases would be handled wholly by one type of court - the concept of 'committal', including committal for sentence, would disappear. The court would determine where 'either-way' cases should be heard: magistrates would allocate such cases to the appropriate Division according to the seriousness of the alleged offence, after representations from each side. Disputes over type of court would be heard by a District Judge, and there would be a right of appeal to a Circuit Judge. Defendants would no longer be able to insist on trial by judge and jury. The District Division, with appropriate level of judge, would hear all youth cases above the summary level.
10. The Government agrees that the allocation of either-way cases should be determined by the court and notes that Sir Robin Auld regards this arrangement - subject to the safeguard of a right of appeal against the allocation decision - as an integral feature of a unified system. Sir Robin's recommendations on mode of trial also address one of the criticisms of previous attempts at reform, namely that defendants could be committed for sentence to the Crown Court (which has greater sentencing powers than magistrates' courts) after being denied a jury trial. Sir Robin's proposals will need careful consideration and we are keen to hear views.
Changes to the procedures for preparation for trial, including a shift in the respective roles of the police and the prosecuting authorities
11. Sir Robin recommends that the Crown Prosecution Service, not the police, should determine the charge in all but minor, routine offences or when a holding charge is necessary.
12. This is an important recommendation which will require careful consideration in the light of the consultation process. In The Way Ahead the Government suggested that there should be greater use of protocols to ensure earlier and better pre-charge advice to police.
13. Changes should be made to the scheme for disclosing prosecution material to the defence, including making prosecutors responsible for identifying all potentially disclosable material. Early communication between defendants and their advocates should be facilitated. Consideration should be given to changing the structure of public funding to reward adequate and timely case preparation by defence lawyers.
14. The Way Ahead recognised the need to consider the disclosure procedures in the context of improving trial management.
Changes to trial procedures
15. There should be fundamental and radical changes to the handling of trials. At the start of a jury trial, the jurors should receive an agreed written summary of the case, and the issues which need to be decided. This 'case and issues' summary would be prepared by the prosecution and defence advocates and agreed by the judge. Juries would reach verdicts by answering a series of structured questions which the judge would identify - replacing the existing form of summing up. This would strengthen the jury as a tribunal of fact, provide a reasoned basis for jury verdicts, and reduce the risk of perverse verdicts. Sir Robin also suggests that it would be valuable to use the case and issues summary in some non-jury trials.
16. The Way Ahead suggested that there was scope for the greater use of written documents, including explanatory material for the jury.
Reform of the rules of evidence
17. There should be a general review of the law of criminal evidence with a view to moving away from technical rules of admissibility to trusting judicial and lay 'fact finders' to give relevant evidence the weight it deserves. The recent Law Commission report, which seeks a more coherent and consistent scheme for the admissibility of misconduct evidence on the part of both defendants and witnesses, should be given full consideration. The rules of expert evidence should be clarified and formalised. It should be easier for witnesses, including police officers, to refer to their previous notes and statements in court.
18. The Government has indicated its interest in changes to the rules of evidence. We said in our Manifesto that the rules of evidence fail to trust the good sense of judges and jurors, and that we saw the case for a number of amendments to this area of the law.
Juries
19. The scope for being excused or exempted from jury service should be limited to ensure a broad make-up of juries. Provision should be made to enable ethnic minority representation on juries where race is likely to be relevant to an important issue in the case.
20. The Government has expressed its commitment to encouraging greater public responsibility for jury service.
21. Alternatives to jury trial for certain cases should be considered. The defendant should always be able to request trial by judge alone in cases above the summary level. In serious fraud cases, an alternative to jury trial might be for the judge to be able to direct the trial by himself, sitting with lay members drawn from a panel.
Following the comments received on a consultation paper on this subject, "Juries in serious fraud trials" issued in 1998, this is still under consideration.
Reform of the double jeopardy rule
22. In the Appeal Court, the Law Commission's recommendation for statutory exceptions to the 'double jeopardy' rule should not be limited to murder and similar offences but should extend to other grave offences punishable with life or other specified long terms of imprisonment. Re-opening of an investigation would need the prior, personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
23. The Government has already indicated its commitment to reform of the double jeopardy rule in respect of murder, and we will listen carefully to views expressed in response to these recommendations.
Codification of the criminal law
24. The law covering offences, court procedures, evidence and sentencing should be consolidated and codified as changes from his review and from the work of the Law Commission and the Sentencing Review by John Halliday are implemented.
25. The Government has indicated that it favours this approach as a long-term commitment.
Managing criminal justice
26. To provide a clear sense of national direction, there should be a new Criminal Justice Board with an independent chair as part of the central management of the criminal justice system. The judiciary would not be represented on the Board but would play a major role through a parallel consultative group. There should also be a major restructuring of the present interlocking network of national and local committees
27. The Government is already simplifying and strengthening the present machinery. The Prime Minister has established a Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Home Secretary, to oversee delivery of the Government's policies for the management and reform of the criminal justice system. This is supported by a Strategic Board which replaces two separate committees and includes representatives of all the criminal justice departments and agencies, the police and the judiciary. The Strategic Board is chaired by the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. The Government would want to consider the effectiveness of these arrangements before considering alternatives.
Information technology
28. The potential of Information and Communication Technology needs to be addressed at all points of the trial process. The legacy of under-investment in information and communication technology and the need for their integration should be addressed, including through the introduction of single electronic case files, managed by a new Criminal Case Management Agency.
29. A comprehensive review of the IT strategy for linking ICT across the CJS, together with a gateway review of that Programme has taken place. This emphasised the importance of enabling the electronic exchange of case file information, the provision of which has been made the subject of a Government target. Work is currently being undertaken on developing the necessary IT. This runs in conjunction with existing and planned work improving the delivery and administration of hearing information and case management.