RCEW welcomes Part 2 of Sir Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts

4 January 2026

In December 2024, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, in response to the appalling backlogs in our criminal justice system (CJS).

• Part 1 of Sir Leveson’s review, examining issues of structural policy reform, was published in July 2025, making 45 recommendations for change – see our comment here.
• Part 2, published today (4.02.2026), looks to efficiency in the criminal courts, and makes a further 135 recommendations.

Rape Crisis England & Wales have been drawing attention to the devastating impact of Crown Court delays on survivors of rape and other serious sexual offences for years, most recently in our report ‘Living in Limbo’. We are very pleased to see that Sir Leveson relied on this report to inform his own review and recommendations:

The Crown Court is in a dire state, and worse still for sexual violence and abuse survivors trying to navigate it. A higher rate of defendants are on bail vs. other offences, and the early guilty plea rate for adult rape cases is consistently lower than the overall rate for all crime combined, meaning RASSO cases are often deprioritised:

• Survivors in RASSO (Rape and Serious Sexual Offence) cases wait longer for trials (364 days from charge to completion on average, vs. 179 days across all other crime case types – many much longer).
• Survivors in RASSO cases not only wait longer for trial dates, but face repeated postponements, often at the last minute, due to a lack of barristers and poor listing practices. Our research shows that 1 in 3 rape trials are postponed at least once.
• Victim-survivor attrition rates are higher (10% of survivors in adult rape cases withdraw from a case after an offender has been charged vs. 6% in other case types).

In addition, when – and indeed if - survivors of sexual violence get to trial, they face unfair and inappropriate questioning, often based on disproportionate recovery of their third-party material, including counselling records, and rooted in archaic rape myths and stereotypes.

We welcome Sir Leveson’s report today, for its overall aim to address the state of the criminal courts, and its specific focus on RASSO cases in several areas. Whilst we need time to fully digest the full 730 page report, we are particularly pleased to note the following findings and recommendations:

• Disclosure: Sir Leveson acknowledges the unique challenges faced by survivors in sexual offence cases with regards to the recovery and disclosure of their third party material, including counselling records:

“Currently, the broad scope of disclosure particularly in cases involving third-party material is being misused tactically in ways that undermine both efficiency and fairness. Defence teams are increasingly making extensive and often late applications for third party material, not only seeking highly confidential records such as medical, therapeutic or social care notes, but doing so in a manner that can serve tactical purposes… This is a significant issue and represents a major inefficiency in how RASSO cases are prosecuted. Disclosure is too often approached in an excessively broad manner, enabling misuse while exposing victims to unnecessary and intrusive requests. While the legal framework appears sound, there seems to be a problematic culture with the police and the CPS granting more access to far more material than is required in RASSO cases” (page 345).

RCEW, in collaboration with partner organisations, have been campaigning against disproportionate disclosure of third-party material in sexual offence cases for many years. We are pleased to see recommendation 89, which calls on the College of Policing, Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecution agencies to ‘conduct further work in promoting consistency in how existing guidance in rape and sexual offence cases is applied and interpreted across the criminal justice system through enhanced training’.

• Listing cases: In our 2025 Living in Limbo report, we highlighted significant concerns around the way in which sexual offence cases are being listed in the Crown Court – often as ‘floating’ trials, rather than fixed and prioritised hearings which would acknowledge the disproportionate delays faced by sexual violence survivors and the impact this can have. Sir Leveson highlights these issues within his review, and makes recommendations to stop the over-listing cases, limit non-fixed listing (including floating trials) and prioritise RASSO cases without custody time limits, as part of a new National Listing Framework - echoing our own recommendations in Living in Limbo.
• Scrutiny and accountability of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS): Sir Leveson recommends that ‘there is a mechanism to examine HMCTS’s operation of the courts, without impeding on independent judicial decision-making. This could be through either a thematic joint inspection via the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, through reporting and audit by the National Audit Office or by reinstating His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration’. This echoes our recommendation in Living in Limbo. HM Inspectorate of Court Administration – HMCTS’ independent inspectorate – was closed by the coalition government of 2010, meaning that HMCTS is the only criminal justice agency not to have its own independent inspectorate. Given the issues with listing in particular, and their impact on sexual violence survivors, we have long called for the re-establishment of the inspectorate to offer due scrutiny and accountability. These calls have been rejected by successive governments, and we hope that Sir Leveson’s recommendation will now encourage the government to think again.
• Pre-recorded cross-examination (s.28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999): RCEW have been campaigning for many years to ensure that sexual offence survivors have full access to the special measures afforded to them in law – in particular the option to have their cross-examination pre-recorded. Over the past few years survivors have faced many issues when attempting to utilise this special measure[MR5] , and there has been much debate across the criminal justice sector regarding the efficacy of s.28. We are very pleased to read Sir Leveson’s support for RASSO survivor’s right to pre-recorded examination, for its ability to assist survivors in giving their best evidence. We welcome his recommendations aimed at ensuring s.28 hearings can be fully and efficiently utilised in the Crown Court, and that where survivors have used s.28, their trials are not delayed.
• A shortage of barristers able to accept RASSO cases: Living in Limbo sets out issues regarding the availability of barristers who are able to accept instructions on RASSO cases in the Crown Court, which leads to further delays for survivors of sexual violence in particular. Almost 1 in 5 of the rape trials that were ineffective in 2024 were ineffective, and therefore postponed, because no barrister was available. These concerns are reflected and addressed in Sir Leveson’s review.
• Problematic cross-examination of sexual violence survivors: Sir Leveson states, “In their report ‘Living in Limbo’, Rape Crisis cited cases of ‘improper introduction of previous sexual history evidence during “cross-examination”, and the “weaponisation of victim/survivors” third-party material, including applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), to suggest that survivors are lying’. This type of cross-examination is problematic, and I am aware that the recent Law Commission report seeks to address some of these issues. It is generally irrelevant since it seeks to suggest that the fact that someone has made a claim for compensation to which they may be entitled is probative of their likely veracity at trial. Not only is it irrelevant, but it is also profoundly distressing for witnesses. In addition, it is, of course, an unnecessary use of court time and judges must be sufficiently trained and empowered to manage this effectively”. Sir Leveson further welcomes reform aimed at limiting the admission of evidence regarding survivors’ previous sexual behaviour, “bad character evidence” relating to previous disclosures of sexual violence by survivors, and the introduction of rape myths and stereotypes by defence barristers.
• The overall response to sexual offence cases by the criminal justice system: We are heartened to see Sir Leveson’s acknowledgment that the efficiency of sexual offence cases warrant particular consideration. RCEW have long pointed out that the previous government’s ‘End-to-End Rape Review’ was not end-to-end - considering cases pre-trial only, when they sit with the police and CPS. We welcome the government’s intention to expand the principle of Operation Soteria into the Crown Court, and welcome Sir Leveson’s recommendation 180, which calls on judges and all others involved in criminal justice, including the CPS and HMCTS, to ‘collaborate on targeted cross-system initiatives to improve efficiency in rape case handling, informed by research into systemic barriers and building on previous reforms like Operation Soteria, and report on measurable outcomes’.