Leveson’s narrow pursuit of justice

Abstract

Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings (2015) represents the latest judicial effort in England and Wales supporting executive attempts, under the guise of ‘efficiency’ measures, to scale back protections traditionally afforded to criminal defendants and has dramatic implications for the maintenance of accurate case outcomes. This includes the integrity of the prosecution process, in particular the reliability of CPS decision-making; the quality and completeness of the disclosure regime; the culture of the CPS; and its management and oversight. This article will argue that the Review adopts a narrow approach to ‘efficiency’ which takes no account of the interest in the accuracy of verdicts, as set out in Rule 1.1.(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and will have no bearing upon the ‘real inefficiencies’ of the process. What appears to be the core of the Review is in fact floss surrounding its competing ambition: shifting cases to magistrates, intensifying pressure to plead guilty, marginalizing the defence, and diminishing jury trial.

Standardization and the Production of Justice in Summary Criminal Courts: A Post-Human Analysis

“…Consequently, traditional adversarial approaches to summary justice are undermined by assembly line stylized case progression, during which decisions about justice are ‘rubber stamped’ (see e.g. Marsh, 2016; Soubise, 2017). It is via such mechanisms that bureaucracy (to which processes of documentary form completion are integral) allows the state to exercise some control over the functions of publicly funded institutions (Murphy, 2009).…”

“…The speed of the proceedings also generates a level of informality which ‘would seem to be rather one-sided: the defendant’s role …is still governed by formal procedures, but the defendant’s rights are greatly reduced’ (McBarnet, 1981: 140). More recently, Marsh (2016) describes magistrates’ court processes as akin to an assembly line. As such, the form’s entanglement in these procedures points to its involvement in the disintegration of the defendant as a rights-bearing and responsive actor.…”

“…For example, a decision was made not to interview lawyers who were then employed within the same firm as it was felt that the ethical risks (such as familiarity with the firm’s procedures and client matters, the potential to upset day-to-day working relationships and highlight/undermine working practices) would negatively influence data collection and analysis. It should further be noted here that the empirical research was conducted as part of Welsh’s PhD study; Welsh L (2016) Magistrates, managerialism and marginalisation: Neoliberalism and access to justice. Doctoral thesis (PhD), University of Kent.…”

The role of lawyers in supporting young people in the criminal justice system: balancing economic survival and children’s rights

“…However, with the time constraints arising from legal aid cuts, it is rare lawyers have the time to build these necessary relationships and obtain such background information which in turn could have a negative impact on the outcome in court. The retraction of legal aid funding consequently creates a culture that Sommerlad (2001) labelled as 'the factory model of practice', Newman (2012, p.3) labelled a 'sausage factory ' and Marsh (2016) characterised as akin to an assembly line.…”