AN APPEAL FOR APPEALS

Below are several quotes by the Lord Chancellor on the subject of the removal of an automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to crown court.

Hansard – House of Commons (16 Dec 2025)

On replacing the automatic right of appeal:

“Sir Brian recommended a permission stage, and we accept his recommendation for creating a permission stage on appeal. That is the right thing to do, particularly because many appeals have no merits, and that is why victims fall away.”

 Mr Lammy defending the removal of the automatic right of appeal in favour of a permission stage, because many appeals are unmeritorious and can delay justice. 

Parliamentary Record – Criminal Court Reform Statement (2 Dec 2025)

In outlining the broader justice reform package that includes the appeal change, Lammy stated (as part of the Government’s explanatory statement to Parliament):“The appeals process from magistrates’ courts will be reformed so that automatic appeals to the Crown Court in criminal cases are replaced with a permission stage, limited to points of law.”— Formal description of the policy as the Government plans to legislate it. In the House of Commons, 2 December 2025 (the main announcement)

In the House of Commons, 2 December 2025 (the main announcement):

Lammy's clearest statement on the appeal changes came in his Commons statement, where he said:

"I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further."

It might be appropriate to quote from my post of 28/05/2024

"The above is an extract from 10 years statistics on appeals to the crown court against verdict and sentence.  I am not a statistician and leave it to others who might explore some numbers or trends.  However a glance tells us that from 2017 there was a marked change in absolute numbers.  The figures for 2020-2022 are those of the period in which the epidemic skewed statistics for myriad organisations.  It is noteworthy in my opinion to look at the years 2014 and 2019.  In the former there was a total of 11,214 appeals at crown court of which 5,731 were against verdict. 2,529 of those were allowed.  Against sentence there were 4,816 with 2,222 being successful.  In 2019 there was a total of 7,925 appeals at crown court of which 3,863 were against verdict. 1,730 of those were allowed.  Against sentence there were 3,435 with 1,705 being successful.  Figures for 2023 are total of 5,803 appeals at crown court of which 2,614 were against verdict. 1,088 of those were allowed.  Against sentence there were 2,647 with 1,272 being successful.  Considering that there are 150 magistrates courts in England and Wales on average only 39 appeals were registered  per court for the year 2023.  Over a million cases are expected annual at magistrates courts.  At the end of September 2023 there were 352,945 outstanding cases at the magistrates' courts. 

There are perhaps two takeaways from the above; the first is the relatively few appeals in total annually and the arguably high rate of success.  Considering that the prime reason for Lammy`s proposals is the reduction of the crown court backlog his argument has little foundation in reality.  When an MP asked directly whether removing the automatic right to rehearing amounted to "easier wrongful imprisonment," Lammy replied: "Of course that person would get permission to appeal if the circumstances were legally correct."



So the questions remain as to why this little noticed proposal is being propelled through parliament. It might be useful to outline the history of the right to appeal.  The automatic right to appeal from the magistrates court to the crown court has long been part of the criminal justice system in England and Wales predating many modern reforms. It derives from longstanding statutory criminal procedure law codified in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (section 108) which provides that a defendant convicted after a summary trial in the magistrates court presently enjoys an automatic right of appeal to the crown court  against his/her sentence if they pleaded guilty and against their conviction if they pleaded not guilty  without needing permission.

Lammy told the House of Commons he would limit appeals from magistrates courts so that they are "only allowed on points of law to prevent justice from being delayed further."  Currently the magistrates court is not a court of record.  Whilst the court must keep a copy of the pronouncement of the bench`s decisions and reasons there is no transcript taken of the whole proceedings which is why an appeal is a full re-hearing of the case.  To fulfil Lammy`s change there will be increased costs of  having a transcript and a judge or recorder will have to wade through said transcript to determine whether or not there is an error in law to validate the permission to  appeal.  The requirement of equipping the necessary recording equipment in hundreds of courtrooms, the payments to judges and the training of staff will not come cheap.  

A prime area of concern if automatic right to appeal is removed is that there will be a massive increase in miscarriages of justice. Since the beginning of this century the availability of legal aid in the lower court has steadily been reduced. It is disconcerting to know that the MOJ has historically refused to publish official statistics on the rate of unrepresented defendants in magistrates' courts unlike in the crown court. The government has consistently failed to provide this data, saying it was "not centrally held." In simple terms that phrase translates as "we don`t want to know these numbers so we don`t collect them in a useable format".  The most significant data came from a parliamentary question answered in 2023 analysed by the Centre for Public Data. In the first half of 2023 48% of defendants appearing in magistrates courts on imprisonable summary offences, 9,240 defendants, did not have legal representation recorded on their case. This had risen from 35% during 2022. 

Taking available information a reasonable working estimate is that somewhere between 35% and 50% of defendants in contested magistrates court trials are unrepresented with the figure likely towards the higher end for summary only imprisonable offences.  One doesn`t have to be a lawyer, statistician, or even a politician to surmise that a defendant who self represented at an original trial in the magistrates court will also be a litigant in person at a crown court re-hearing.  

As usual the Magistrates Association is caught between kowtowing to government proposals, its supposed representations of its members` opinions and the public good.  In a summary of the profession’s responses to the proposed reform on appeals (as reported in The Times), the MA’s submission to the relevant consultation stated:

“While speedy summary justice is efficient, it may occasionally result in rough edges and potential errors. Retaining the option to appeal is seen as a crucial safeguard, enabling individuals to seek redress and a comprehensive review of their cases.”

“We are supportive of the right of appeal remaining, though if this will be restricted, we are pleased that there will still be provision for points of law, which will bring it into line with cases in Crown courts.”

“The government’s proposals are a big vote of confidence in magistrates, but to maximise the success of these changes they must be accompanied by investment in recruitment and improvements to court building infrastructure.”

More recently for the MA’s Oral and Written Evidence to the Justice Committee (January 2026) that the MA submitted to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee on criminal court reform, it did cover appeals from the magistrates’ court as part of the reform package but did not supply a stand alone detailed position specifically on restricting the automatic right. Such equivocal response is typical of this government lap dog`s attitude to its functions. The MA have not publicly published a dedicated official position paper exclusively on the restricted appeal proposal in Government’s reform bills.

In stark contrast The Law Society had already made its position clear in a response to the Law Commission's review of criminal appeals explicitly stating that it supports retaining the right of a person convicted in the magistrates' court to have an appeal in the crown court through a full rehearing.  In the Commons an MP directly challenged Lammy by pointing out that the Bar Council had seen "no evidence" that the reforms would significantly reduce the crown court backlog and called on the government to publish its modelling before legislating. The Centre for Criminal Appeals which handles wrongful conviction cases renewed its strong opposition to the government announcement describing it as drastically curtailing appeal rights. 

To put it plainly I have  three bones to pick with this proposal. Firstly it will make it harder to undo wrongful convictions.  Confidence in our justice system at present is hardly hitting the heights of public approval: reducing availability of appeal will hardly enhance it.  Secondly  without audio recording in magistrates courts and there isn't any,  how exactly is a defendant supposed to identify, let alone argue, a point of law?  And finally nobody in the Ministry of Justice has yet bothered to explain why appeals rather than years of starving the courts of money and sitting days are the thing causing the backlog. Ministers would do well to look in the mirror before blaming defendants for exercising rights that Parliament gave them and which have been exercised judicially and successfully for over 100 years to their and society`s benefit.