THE OPEN COURTROOM HAS BEEN FUNDAMENTAL TO ENGLISH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE PRESENT AS LONG AS THERE IS ROOM AND THEY DO NOT INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS. THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL OUTPUT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION IN THE PAST DECADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE TRIAL DELAYS, REFORM SENTENCING PROCEDURES, AND INTRODUCE NONCUSTODIAL CORRECTIONAL MEASURES. WHEN THE CROWN COURTS WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1972 IN ORDER TO EASE THE COURT'S BACKLOG, AN ATTEMPT TO EXPAND THE DUTY HOURS OF THE JUDGE AND JURY DID NOT RESULT IN ANY APPRECIABLE INCREASE IN CASE DISPOSALS. HOWEVER, A COMPLEX OF NIGHT COURTS IN METROPOLITAN LONDON WOULD BE A FEASIBLE WAY TO REDUCE BACKLOGS AND WOULD BE ECONOMICAL FOR WITNESSES WHO WOULD NOT HAVE TO TAKE TIME OFF TO APPEAR IN COURT. IN ORDER TO REDUCE PRISON COSTS AND OVERCROWDING, UNIMPORTANT OFFENSES COULD BE TREATED BY NONCUSTODIAL SENTENCING METHODS. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OR A PLEA OF GUILTY SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN SENTENCING. ALTHOUGH THE INSTITUTION OF TRIAL BY JURY IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE ENGLISH SYSTEM, THE INCREASE OF LONG AND COMPLEX CRIMINAL CASES HAS RAISED DOUBTS AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF JURY TRIALS FOR ALL CASES. TIME AND MONEY COULD BE SAVED IF THE ACCUSED HAD THE OPTION AT CROWN COURT TO CHOOSE TRIAL BY A JUDGE AND JURY OR A JUDGE AND A PANEL. APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MERELY DISSATISFIED WITH A COURT DECISION, BUT MUST BE BASED ON STATUTORY PROVISIONS. APPEAL PROCEDURES ARE DESCRIBED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL COURTS, INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL INQUIRIES BOARD, THE JUVENILE COURT, MAGISTRATES' COURT, CROWN COURT, AND THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. THE BOOKLET CONTAINS A DIAGRAM OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS AND A CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES BY COURT JURISDICTION. INDEXES RELATED TO CASE, STATUTE, AND SUBJECT. (MJM)