Criminal Justice Act 2015

Introduction

The term “Criminal Justice Act 2015” is often used as shorthand for a package of 2015 reforms, with the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) at its core. Together, these changes responded to online offending, standards in care and policing, driving offences, pressures on the courts, and concerns about the cost and pace of judicial review.

This guide focuses on the CJCA 2015 and closely linked measures from the same period. You’ll find a clear run-through of the new offences (including image-based abuse), updates affecting care workers and providers, a dedicated offence covering police corruption, driving offences for disqualified drivers who cause serious injury, juror misconduct rules, youth custody education proposals, and important judicial review reforms. Where helpful, related legislation is signposted so you can see how the pieces fit within the wider UK criminal law.

What You'll Learn

• What changed in 2015: the headline offences and procedural reforms
• How the image-sharing offence works and what prosecutors must prove
• New criminal liability for care workers and care provider organisations
• The scope of the police corruption offence and juror misconduct offences
• Driving changes for disqualified drivers causing serious injury
• How the 2015 reforms affected extreme pornography provisions
• The main shifts in judicial review (including the “highly likely” test and costs)
• Practical steps for investigators, defence teams, employers and public bodies

Core Concepts

New offences introduced in 2015

Several notable offences arrived with the CJCA 2015:

• Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress (often called “revenge porn”): This offence targets the non-consensual sharing of intimate images where the defendant intends to cause distress. It applies to photographs and films depicting a person’s genitals, buttocks, breasts, or sexual activity, reasonably expected to remain private. Typical issues include proving intent, identifying the uploader, and addressing platforms or third-party sharing. On indictment the maximum sentence is two years.

• Ill-treatment or wilful neglect by care workers (individual offence): Care workers (paid workers providing health or social care) commit an offence if they ill-treat or wilfully neglect individuals under their care. This aims to protect those relying on professional care and to set clear expectations for conduct.

• Care provider organisations (corporate offence): Separate liability can attach to the organisation where ill-treatment or wilful neglect occurs, reflecting management or organisational failings. Sanctions include fines and remedial/corrective measures ordered by the court.

• Police corruption: The CJCA 2015 created a specific offence for a police constable’s corrupt or other improper exercise of powers and privileges. It plugs gaps where the common law offence of misconduct in public office proved difficult to deploy and provides targeted provisions for policing. The offence can attract substantial custodial terms (up to 14 years).

• Juror misconduct: It is now an offence for jurors to research the case (for example, using the internet to look up the defendant or alleged facts), share that research, or attempt to disclose jury deliberations. Courts treat these breaches seriously to protect trial fairness and maintain public confidence.

• Driving while disqualified causing serious injury: The CJCA 2015 inserted a specific offence into the Road Traffic Act 1988 (s.3ZD), criminalising causing serious injury by driving while disqualified. This sits alongside existing driving offences and raises the stakes for those who ignore disqualification, with maximum sentences reflecting the harm caused.

Sexual and online content offences

• Image-based abuse: The 2015 image-sharing offence targets conduct that sits between harassment, privacy torts, and communications offences. Prosecutors must show:

  • The images were private and sexual.
  • Disclosure was made without the subject’s consent.
  • The defendant intended to cause distress. Defences can apply (for example, where disclosure was necessary for the prevention, detection or investigation of crime). Platform compliance and takedown steps may affect harm but do not necessarily remove liability for the original disclosure.

• Extreme pornography: The CJCA 2015 broadened the prohibited categories to include images depicting rape or assault by penetration, recognising the harm associated with such material. This sits within the framework begun by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, with possession offences and statutory definitions tightly drawn.

• Related 2015 updates: Alongside the CJCA 2015, the Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced “sexual communication with a child” and other grooming-related measures within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 framework. While separate legislation, these provisions are often discussed together because they reflect the same year’s policy focus on online harms and protection of children.

Driving, juries and police conduct

• Disqualified drivers: The creation of s.3ZD RTA 1988 (causing serious injury by driving while disqualified) clarified that harm resulting from prohibited driving justifies stronger penalties. This offence is distinct from dangerous or careless driving offences; prosecutors select the appropriate charge based on evidence of driving standard and the defendant’s status (e.g., disqualified).

• Juror offences: New juror misconduct offences aim to prevent trial contamination through internet searches, social media posts, and external discussion. This aligns with stronger judicial directions, clearer juror guidance, and the courts’ broader powers to protect trial integrity.

• Police corruption offence: The CJCA 2015 defined corrupt or improper use of police powers, catching conduct such as accepting bribes, manipulating investigations, or misusing privileged access. It sits alongside internal discipline and existing public law remedies. The criminal offence signals a serious response where internal misconduct processes are not enough.

Courts, sentencing and judicial review

• Youth custody and education: The CJCA 2015 set out a framework for “secure colleges” (education-focused youth custody). Although not fully rolled out, this reflected a policy shift towards structured education and rehabilitation within custody for young people. It sits alongside existing Youth Offending Team arrangements and custodial settings.

• Single Justice Procedure (SJP) and court efficiency: The Act supported streamlined handling of certain low-level, non-imprisonable summary offences (often traffic-related) by a single magistrate on the papers. Defendants retain rights to a full hearing if they contest the case, but the SJP helps deal with straightforward matters more quickly.

• Judicial review reforms (Part 4):

  • “Highly likely” test: The court must refuse relief if it appears highly likely the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different even if the conduct complained of had not occurred, subject to discretion in exceptional cases.
  • Financial information and costs: Claimants and interveners face tighter rules on costs exposure and funding disclosure. The court can order interveners to pay costs in certain circumstances.
  • Practical effect: These changes aim to filter claims lacking real-world impact, focusing court time on disputes where relief would make a substantive difference.

• Sentencing signals: Where new offences were created (e.g., image-based abuse, juror misconduct, police corruption, s.3ZD RTA), Parliament set penalties to reflect public concern and harm profiles. Sentencing guidelines and case law then refine how courts assess culpability, aggravating/mitigating features, and totality.

Key Examples or Case Studies

• Image-sharing prosecution under CJCA 2015

  • Facts: A former partner uploaded intimate images to a messaging app after a breakup and encouraged others to share them.
  • Legal issues: Proving intent to cause distress; attributing the posting to the defendant; assessment of harm where images spread rapidly.
  • Outcome: Conviction under the image-sharing offence with a custodial sentence. Restraining orders, compensation, and removal orders were considered.

• Care provider organisation convicted

  • Facts: A care home faced persistent staff shortages and poor supervision. Residents suffered neglect, with incidents of rough handling and ignored hygiene needs.
  • Legal issues: Corporate liability under the care provider offence; whether management systems and training were adequate; weight of whistleblowing evidence and inspection reports.
  • Outcome: Conviction with a significant fine, remedial order, and a publicity order requiring the provider to publicise the offence and sentence.

• Juror misconduct via online research

  • Facts: A juror searched for the defendant’s name online and found media coverage about previous allegations, then told other jurors.
  • Legal issues: Breach of the juror research offence; admissibility of device examination; safeguarding the fairness of the original trial.
  • Outcome: Juror convicted and sentenced for misconduct; the original trial was discharged and re-listed.

• Disqualified driver causing serious injury

  • Facts: A disqualified driver borrowed a family member’s car and collided with a cyclist, causing multiple fractures.
  • Legal issues: Charge selection (dangerous driving versus s.3ZD RTA 1988); expert evidence on speed and impact; analysis of previous disqualification and knowledge.
  • Outcome: Conviction under s.3ZD with a custodial sentence, extended disqualification, and a requirement to take an extended retest.

• Judicial review and the “highly likely” test

  • Facts: A local authority made a procedural error in a public procurement, but the winning tender was objectively far ahead.
  • Legal issues: Whether relief should be refused as it was highly likely the result would have been the same; costs exposure given the applicant’s funding.
  • Outcome: Permission refused and claim dismissed on the “highly likely” basis; the court adjusted costs to reflect the new statutory approach.

Practical Applications

• For investigators and prosecutors

  • Secure and preserve digital evidence early in image-sharing cases (original files, platform logs, device downloads).
  • When charging care offences, build a picture of organisational systems, training, and supervision—not just individual acts.
  • For juror misconduct, move quickly to seize devices and preserve audit trails.

• For defence teams

  • Test the mental element for the image-sharing offence (genuine intent to cause distress versus other motives).
  • In care cases, probe whether conduct meets the threshold of ill-treatment or wilful neglect and whether training/resources were adequate.
  • For juror offences, scrutinise directions given, clarity of warnings, and the reliability of device evidence.

• For care providers and employers

  • Update policies, training, and supervision frameworks; record compliance activity.
  • Encourage internal reporting (speak-up systems) and respond to concerns promptly.
  • Keep clear staffing and incident records to demonstrate due diligence.

• For police forces

  • Strengthen anti-corruption policies, gifts and hospitality registers, and audit access to sensitive systems.
  • Ensure officers understand criminal exposure beyond internal discipline.

• For public bodies and JR respondents

  • Keep an audit trail showing how a procedural flaw would not have changed the outcome.
  • Prepare for funding disclosure issues and potential costs risks for interveners.

• For drivers and motoring advisers

  • Explain the distinct offence of causing serious injury while disqualified and the sentencing range.
  • Check interaction with dangerous/careless driving charges to ensure correct charge selection.

Summary Checklist

• Know the elements of the image-sharing offence (private, sexual, non-consensual, intent to cause distress)
• Distinguish individual care worker liability from corporate care provider liability
• Recognise the scope of the police corruption offence and how it differs from misconduct in public office
• Use s.3ZD RTA 1988 for serious injury caused by disqualified drivers where evidence fits
• Apply juror misconduct offences to online research and disclosure of deliberations
• Factor in the 2015 expansion of extreme pornography definitions
• In JR, address the “highly likely” test and funding/costs disclosure requirements
• In youth cases, consider the policy direction towards education within custody
• For employers and providers, maintain robust training and supervision records
• For digital cases, prioritise swift evidence preservation and platform liaison

Quick Reference