Court backlog will take decade to fall to pre-Covid levels despite overhaul, says MoJ
Justice secretary says only his measures will stop backlog in England and Wales from increasing exponentially
The backlog in criminal courts in England and Wales will take a decade to fall to pre-Covid levels despite radical changes including curtailing jury trials, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice.
The justice secretary, David Lammy, said the government was determined to press ahead with the jury trial changes despite a potential rebellion from Labour MPs, warning that no other measures would stop the backlog from rising exponentially.
It will take a decade for the changes to reduce the backlog to even below the current levels because of the scale of the rise, Ministry of Justice figures show. More than 80,000 cases are now in the crown court backlog, which is predicted to reach 100,000 by 2028, when the overhaul would come into force should the bill pass.
The courts minister, Sarah Sackman, said the department was “throwing the kitchen sink” at the backlog and that only a combination of investment, modernisation and changes such as judge-only trials would start to bring the backlog down.
On Tuesday the government announced that it would lift the cap on court sitting days, one of the measures that critics of the changes have said would help clear the backlog.
But figures released by the Ministry of Justice suggested that measure alone would not stop the backlog of cases from rising significantly. “We cannot sit our way out of the crisis,” Sackman said.
“If we sit at maximum capacity and lift the financial limits on the work the crown court is doing, not only is it not enough to reduce the backlog, it’s barely enough to keep up with demand.”
The reform package – including extra sitting days, a major modernisation programme as well as new judge-only trials – would reduce demand on crown court time by nearly 20%, the Ministry of Justice said.
But because of the rising backlog, the reforms would bring the numbers down to only pre-Covid levels by 2035.
Sackman said that the government was “staying the course” on the reforms despite predictions of a U-turn on jury trial. “The choices we are making are based on pragmatism but also principle, we are redesigning a system that centres the victim,” she said.
The reforms will see courts triage cases and remove a defendant’s choice about where their trial can be heard – sending significantly more to magistrates courts and offences which carry sentences of three years or less could be heard be a new bench division which will be heard and decided by judges alone.
Sackman said it was now commonplace for trials to be listed in the crown court for 2030, particularly in London. But she said it was also clear that more and more cases were collapsing, 7,500 last year, because of ineffective trials with a lack of prosecutors or defence barristers.
The reforms are expected to apply retrospectively to cases that are in the system in 2028 – meaning that if defendants had opted for a crown court trial expecting a jury, they could be told to expect a judge-only trial. Sackman said it was crucial the same rules applied across the board once the reforms came in – in order to avoid a “two-tier system”.
Lammy said there would be a major technological shift in the court system, rapidly increasing use of remote hearings, including for bail and case management hearings, though not full criminal trials.
There will be a new digital national listing model across the country and an expected roll-out of an AI listings tool, which can predict the length of trials and assign empty court rooms. There will be new “blitz courts” where similar cases are listed over a shorter period.
The Labour MP Karl Turner, a vocal opponent of the reforms, told Politico there were 60 Labour MPs prepared to rebel on the proposals. “If whips think this rebellion that’s about to come is about some PLP members being cheesed off at the government they have it wrong,” he posted on X.
“We will NOT allow this government or any government of any political persuasion to do away with the right to a trial by jury.”