Police and CPS urged to make greater use of OOCRs to ease courts’ crisis

With the open caseload in the Crown Court now at a record high, he has proposed a string of radical reforms aimed at addressing these challenges.

These include a recommendation that police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) make greater use of out of court resolutions (OOCRs) as an alternative to court proceedings in relation to low-level offences, allowing the police to devote time to more serious offending.

The use of OOCRs has decreased by 35 per cent from 2015 to 2025. Sir Brian says this decline can be attributed to changed police priorities, the complexity of the process to administer OOCRs, limited awareness or availability of programmes and financial constraints. There is also variation across regions, often influenced by the priorities of different police and crime commissioners (PCCs).

He said it is appropriate to encourage greater use of OOCRs both as a means of reducing the number of new cases entering the magistrates’ court and as a mechanism to review appropriate cases in the open caseload to ensure that only those cases that need to go to court do so.

A consultation has also been launched in Northern Ireland on increasing the use of OOCRs by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Public Prosecution Service to divert some offences away from courts and ease the “significant pressure” on the criminal justice system.

“The aphorism ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is entirely apt,” said Sir Brian.

As of December 2024, there were more than 75,000 outstanding cases in the Crown Court. That is more than double the numbers in 2019, and trials are being listed as far ahead as 2029.

Delayed justice results in a host of problems says Sir Brian: devastating impacts on the lives of victims and witnesses, a number of whom may withdraw from proceedings; defendants left in limbo for years; and knock-on effects on the rest of the justice system, such as a rising remand population taking up scarce prison places.

“The scale of the problem requires a solution of equal magnitude,” said Sir Brian.

“There are many causes for the problems that we are facing. The first is that long-term constraints and reductions in funding and investment in criminal justice over many years have resulted in fewer available courts, a considerable maintenance backlog in the court estate and a smaller and less experienced workforce. This has been exacerbated by the disconnect between different agencies within the criminal justice system.

“The second is the increasing complexity of criminal law, both its procedures and the advent of new forms of evidence (whether extracted from mobile phones, computers or in the form of DNA analysis). These developments have all been designed to improve the delivery of justice and the fairness of proceedings, but have increased the time that jury trials in particular take, so that they are now twice as long as in 2000.

The Leveson Review highlights that “proportionate and appropriate early decision-making processes involving the police and CPS are important”; from arrest, through release while investigations proceed, to charging and post-charge decisions relating to bail and remand.

The Policing and Crime Act 2017 (even after its amendment in 2022) imposed legislative requirements for checks on continued delay in investigation.

As a result, a practice developed of releasing suspects under investigation (RUI) without any real control over how long that investigation might take, Sir Brian says. In addition, there remain issues between the police and CPS in relation to the sufficiency of evidence for an appropriate decision to be reached as to a proportionate charging decision.

Additionally, whether or not accurately reflecting the approach taken by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, there is a perception that police officers will face formal investigation for conducting an inappropriate risk analysis in relation to bail if a suspect commits any further offence when released on bail. This drives risk aversion amongst the police, the review says. This contributes to the growing remand population, which is both a cause and an outcome of the open caseload.

The Leveson Review recommends that the College of Policing makes clear that RUI is no longer appropriate and that the only mechanism for releasing a suspect from the police station while an investigation continues should be bail (unconditional or subject to conditions). Alternatively, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 should be amended to include statutory provisions in relation to the use of RUI, identical to those in force on bail.

Echoing a report by His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services published on Thursday (July 10), Sir Brian also said the police and CPS need to establish better communication channels to facilitate collaborative decision-making and improvement of their decision-making process.

While the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Baroness Newlove, welcomed the Leveson Review’s recognition of the problem and its bold proposals, she is concerned that some measures – such as increased sentence discounts and expanded OOCRs  – may be perceived as diluting justice. There is also concern that the proposed measures may not be enough to sufficiently reduce the backlog.

She is urging the Government to respond with even greater ambition, committing to sustained, long-term investment and expanding court capacity.

However, she cautions that change will take time, and tens of thousands of victims will remain waiting; these victims must be properly supported to prevent disengagement, and victim services must be prioritised in forthcoming spending decisions.

“Our criminal courts are in crisis. This is an emergency. We are failing victims, and we have been for some time,” said Baroness Newlove.

“In 2019, as my previous term as Victims’ Commissioner came to a close, I warned of the growing Crown Court backlog. At that time, the open caseload stood at around 33,000. Now projections suggest it could reach 105,000 cases by 2029.

“To stand by and do nothing to tackle this would be a dereliction of duty. Behind every number is a victim, asked to wait years for justice – and for many, justice that never comes.

“This Review rightly recognises the scale of the challenge. It sets out bold, radical proposals to overhaul our criminal courts and bring them back from the brink, and deliver swifter justice for victims. I welcome this, though not without reservation. For many victims, plans to increase sentence discounts for guilty pleas and expand out-of-court disposals will feel like justice being diluted once again.

“The truth is nothing short of bold reform will fix a system this badly broken. No amount of efficiency tweaks can deliver what is needed. The system has been hollowed out for too long. What the Leveson Review proposes is radical – but it is also necessary. There is no credible alternative, but even this may fall short of what’s truly needed.

“The Government must now match the scale of the challenge with a bold response. Above all, these reforms must be properly funded – through sustained, long-term investment. That means not only reshaping the courts, but expanding sitting day capacity, building resilience across the system, and ensuring reform delivers real results for victims and for justice.”

She added: “Change will not be easy, and relief will not come overnight. Even with immediate action, tens of thousands of victims will remain in limbo. As we press forward with reform, the Government has a moral duty to ensure victims get the services they need to stay engaged in the pursuit of justice.

“Yet the reality is stark: the very services designed to support victims are under intolerable pressure. Demand is rising, resources are stretched thin, and providers are grappling with cuts and soaring costs. Some now stand on the brink of collapse. These services are a lifeline. The Government must recognise this as they consider their spending plans for the next three years. Victims should not have to shoulder the burden of a backlog not of their making.

“Delay is not just an administrative failing. It has devastating human consequences. Victims’ lives are left in limbo. This Review – and my own research – lay clear the emotional toll: lives disrupted, work and family strained, mental health eroded. It is no surprise that some victims disengage altogether.

“Victims need a justice system that works – not in theory, but in practice. This Review offers the best chance in a generation to fix it. The Government must seize that opportunity without delay.”

Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Emily Spurrell said: “Sir Brian Leveson’s review clearly articulates the problems our criminal justice system faces and makes clear that only radical change can deliver justice for victims and defendants whilst rebuilding public trust.

“As PCCs we too often hear from victims who feel let down and ignored, so we welcome the changes proposed to tackle delays in getting cases to trial and increase confidence amongst those seeking justice, including more use of out of court resolutions.

“Freeing-up time in Crown Courts is vital but it is essential these changes reflect the views of victims. Reform is welcome but must not come at the cost of those the system is meant to protect.”

Sir Brian has also recommended that defendants in the Crown Court should be allowed to elect to be tried by judge alone.

But chair of the Justice Committee Andy Slaughter says juries are “central to our constitutional right to a fair trial”.

“We should think very carefully before altering a system that has served us well for centuries,” he said. “But that does not mean the ambit of the jury system can never change. Sir Brian makes a compelling case for radical change and the need for more than extra resources to restore the reputation of the criminal courts.

“The Justice Committee will consider the recommendations on jury trial in the independent review with an open mind, alongside the series of further changes to the operation of the Crown Courts which the review recommends.

“Structural change, operational efficiency and increasing investment are all key to making inroads into the unprecedented backlog of cases in the criminal justice system. They are not alternatives. We owe it to victims and defendants alike, indeed to all court users, to take the necessary steps to end delay and dysfunction in our courts.”

Caroline Black, consultant at Gherson Solicitors LLP, said: “The biggest change recommended by Sir Brian Levison is undoubtedly contained in Chapter 9 and the recommendations for trial by judge alone. This has long been debated in serious and complex fraud cases, where the prosecution has advocated that many cases may be “too complex” for juries.

“While it is true that fraud and corruption cases can be complex, the right to a fair trial, judged by a jury of one’s peers is not something which should be easily disposed of. Juries can be counted on to make the right decision even in complex circumstances. The debate will no doubt continue.”

Lucy Tapper, partner and barrister at Reeds Solicitors LLP, said: “On first reading, the Leveson Report appears to acknowledge many critical issues that would, if acted upon, markedly improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system and arguably bring it back from the brink. It pulls no punches concerning the urgent need for action and proper funding without which it simply cannot survive.

“By prioritising the effective restoration of our existing system, surely our time-honoured jury system can and must be preserved?  The current crisis wasn’t caused by juries – so why should their removal be touted as a solution? Juries bring independence, insight, trust and fairness into the courtroom.

“Any attempt to re-structure the Crown Court and implement a new, jury-less ‘Crown Court Bench Division’ would not only be undesirable but costly and time-consuming.

“It is a ‘recommendation’ that should be sealed away in a glass-fronted box – to be accessed only ‘in case of emergency’ because once smashed, it won’t be easily put back together, and that should be avoided at all costs.”