Criminal Court Reform and the Crown Court Backlog.

The criminal courts in England and Wales are under severe pressure. Victims, witnesses and defendants can wait years for cases to be concluded, while trials may be postponed because courtrooms, judges, barristers or other essential resources are unavailable.

Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review of the Criminal Courts has recommended substantial changes to the way cases are allocated, prepared and tried. The government has accepted the need for structural reform and introduced legislation intended to reduce delay and reserve jury trials for the most serious cases.

How Large Is the Crown Court Backlog?

At the end of December 2025, the Crown Court open caseload stood at 80,203 cases, the highest level recorded in the current statistical series.

Although courts completed more cases than during the previous year, the number of new cases remained higher than the number concluded. The backlog therefore continued to grow.

By March 2026, the open caseload remained at approximately 80,000 cases. Some of the most seriously affected courts have been listing trials several years into the future.

Why Has the Backlog Grown?

The backlog does not have a single cause. Contributing factors include:

• Increasing numbers of serious and complex cases
• The suspension and disruption of trials during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Shortages of judges, barristers, court staff and other professionals
• Limits previously placed on Crown Court sitting days
• Prisoner transport and custody difficulties
• Late disclosure of evidence
• Problems obtaining digital, medical and forensic evidence
• Cases being ineffective because witnesses or lawyers are unavailable
• An ageing court estate and unreliable technology
• More cases taking longer to prepare and try

Increasing the number of sitting days can help, but a courtroom cannot operate effectively without judges, advocates, staff, prisoners, witnesses and functioning facilities.

The Effect of Delay on Victims

Every outstanding case involves people waiting for a decision. For victims, long delays can prolong fear, uncertainty and trauma.

A victim may have to repeatedly prepare to attend court, arrange childcare or time away from work and revisit distressing events, only to learn that the trial has been postponed.

Delay can be particularly harmful in cases involving:

• Rape and other sexual offences
• Domestic abuse
• Serious violence
• Child witnesses
• Bereaved families
• Victims experiencing intimidation

Some victims withdraw support for a prosecution because they no longer feel able to continue through a lengthy and uncertain process.

The Effect on Defendants

Defendants are also entitled to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

A person awaiting trial may be held in custody, subject to restrictive bail conditions, suspended from employment or separated from family members. An acquitted defendant cannot recover the years spent waiting under the burden of an unresolved allegation.

Delay can also weaken the quality of justice. Memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, and evidence may be lost or become more difficult to interpret.

The Leveson Review

The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts was chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, a former President of theQueen'ss Bench Division.

The review considered how criminal cases could be dealt with more proportionately and how courts and criminal justice agencies could operate more efficiently.

Part 1 focused principally on structural reform and the types of cases that should be heard in the magistrates' courts, by judges or by juries.

Part 2 examined efficiency, case preparation, court listing, technology and the work of organisations whose performance affects the courts.

Proposals to Restrict Jury Trials

The government has introduced proposals under which jury trials would remain available for the most serious criminal cases. Still, some intermediate cases would be tried by a Judge sitting without a jury.

A proposed new Swift, Bench Division of the Crown Court would hear certain cases where the likely sentence is no more than three years' imprisonment.

Under the proposals, a Judge would decide both guilt and sentence in those cases. The government argues that judge-alone trials would take less time and allow cases to be concluded more quickly.

These measures form part of proposed legislation and should not be treated as the current procedure unless and until Parliament approves them and they are brought into force.

Why Are Jury-Trial Changes Controversial?

Trial by jury is a longstanding feature of the criminal justice system. Supporters argue that juries provide independent public participation and prevent the state from having exclusive control over decisions of guilt.

Critics of restricting jury trials are concerned that:

• Important cases could be removed from juries
• The right to jury trial could be reduced further in future
• Judges may be required to decide disputed facts after seeing inadmissible or prejudicial material
• The reform addresses demand without resolving shortages of lawyers, staff and courtrooms
• Public confidence may be weakened

Supporters respond that jury trial would remain for the most serious offences. That reform is necessary when victims and defendants are waiting years for justice.

More Cases in the Magistrates' Courts

The reform programme also proposes that more criminal cases should remain in the magistrates' courts rather than being sent to the Crown Court.

Magistrates' courts generally deal with cases more quickly and use fewer resources than Crown Court proceedings.

However, the transfer of additional work requires sufficient magistrates, district judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, legal advisers and court staff. Moving cases between courts does not remove the need to fund and staff the receiving court properly.

One way of keeping more cases outside the Crown Court is to increase the maximum prison sentence that magistrates can impose.

This may reduce the number of cases sent to the Crown Court solely for sentencing. It can also allow either-way offences to remain in the magistrates' court where that forum is suitable.

Concerns include the possibility of longer sentences being imposed and additional pressure being transferred to magistrates' courts and prisons.

Pre-Trial Preparation

Trials frequently fail to proceed because the case was not ready. Effective preparation requires the police, prosecution and defence to identify the issues and exchange evidence at an early stage.

Common problems include:

• Late service of prosecution evidence
• Incomplete disclosure
• Unreviewed telephone or digital evidence
• Missing medical or forensic reports
• Unresolved legal arguments
• Failure to arrange interpreters or intermediaries
• Witness availability not being checked
• Defendants being brought late or not produced from custody

Listing more trials will not reduce delay if a significant number cannot proceed on the appointed date.

Disclosure and Digital Evidence

Modern investigations can generate enormous quantities of digital evidence from telephones, computers, cameras, vehicles and online accounts.

The prosecution must disclose material that might reasonably undermine its case or assist the defence. However, identifying relevant material from large data sets can take considerable time.

Technology may help investigators search, categorise and review material, but automated tools should not replace proper legal judgment. Safeguards are needed to protect privacy, confidential information and legally privileged communications.

Artificial Intelligence in the Courts

The government has announced plans for greater use of digital systems and an artificial intelligence court assistant.

Technology may assist with administrative work, scheduling, document handling and identifying incomplete case information.

However, decisions about guilt, sentence, evidence and individual rights must remain subject to proper judicial decision-making. Any system should be reliable, transparent, secure and capable of human review.

A National Approach to Listing Cases

Listing determines when and where a case will be heard. Inconsistent listing practices can result in courtrooms being unused in one area while cases face severe delays elsewhere.

A new national Practice Direction on criminal court listing is due to take effect on 1 October 2026. It directs courts to consider the human impact of delay and provides a more consistent national framework for prioritising cases.

Factors that may be relevant include:

• Whether a defendant is in custody
• The vulnerability of a victim or witness
• The age of the case
• The seriousness of the offence
• The effect of delay on children
• Whether an earlier trial has already been postponed

Uncapped Crown Court Sitting Days

The government has announced that Crown Court sitting days will not be capped during the 2026/27 financial year.

This means funding should be available for courts to sit whenever the system has the practical capacity to hear cases.

Removing the cap does not by itself guarantee additional trials. Courts still require available judges, advocates, staff, functioning buildings and sufficient prison and transport capacity.

The Court Estate

Many courts operate from old buildings requiring substantial maintenance. Heating failures, leaks, security problems and broken technology can cause hearings to be moved or cancelled.

Closing local courts may reduce property costs but can make attendance more difficult for victims, witnesses, defendants and lawyers.

Modernisation should therefore consider accessibility as well as efficiency. A digital service is not an adequate substitute where a person cannot use it, needs an interpreter or requires face-to-face support.

Remote Hearings

Video hearings can reduce travel and allow short procedural matters to be dealt with more efficiently.

They may be suitable for:

• Case-management hearings
• Administrative applications
• Some bail hearings
• Evidence from particular vulnerable witnesses
• Participation by prisoners from custody

Remote participation is not suitable for every hearing. Poor connections, lack of privacy and difficulty communicating with a lawyer can affect fairness.

The court must consider whether remote attendance allows the participant to understand and take part effectively.

Child and Vulnerable Witnesses

Children and vulnerable witnesses may receive special measures to help them give evidence.

These can include:

• Giving evidence behind a screen
• Using a live video link
• Pre-recording evidence-in-chief
• Pre-recording cross-examination
• Using an intermediary
• Giving evidence in private

Pre-recording evidence can prevent a child or vulnerable witness from waiting years to be questioned. It also allows questioning to take place closer to the time of the alleged offence.

V Victims'Rights and Communication

Victims should receive information about the progress of the investigation, charging decisions, hearings, delays and the outcome of the case under the Victims' Code.

Where a trial is postponed, the reason should be explained as clearly as possible. The victim should be told what will happen next.

Good communication cannot remove the harm caused by delay, but poor communication can make the experience considerably worse.

Legal Aid and Criminal Defence

A functioning criminal justice system requires properly funded prosecution and defence services.

Legal aid enables eligible defendants to receive advice and representation. Criminal defence firms and barristers have repeatedly raised concerns about low remuneration, recruitment problems and experienced practitioners leaving publicly funded work.

Court reform cannot succeed if defendants are unable to obtain representation or trials are repeatedly adjourned because no suitable advocate is available.

Why Defence Representation Matters

Criminal defence lawyers do not prevent justice from being done. Their role is to test the prosecution evidence, protect the defendant's legal rights and ensure that convictions are safe.

Effective early advice can also improve efficiency by:

• Identifying the real issues
• Advising on plea
• Agreeing undisputed evidence
• Resolving disclosure problems
• Avoiding unnecessary hearings
• Ensuring vulnerable defendants receive support

Cutting the quality or availability of defence representation can create more delay and increase the risk of miscarriages of justice.

Would Faster Justice Always Be Better?

Cases should be dealt with promptly, but speed must not replace fairness.

A rushed investigation or trial may result in:

• Evidence being overlooked
• Inadequate disclosure
• Witnesses being questioned improperly
• Defendants receiving insufficient advice
• Unsafe convictions
• Victims having to endure a retrial

The objective should be timely and effective justice, rather than simply disposing of cases as quickly as possible.

Will the Reforms Clear the Backlog?

Structural reform may reduce the time required for some cases and allow Crown Court resources to be concentrated on the most serious trials.

However, lasting improvement will also depend on:

• Stable long-term funding
• Recruiting and retaining judges and lawyers
• Improved police and prosecution preparation
• Reliable technology
• A maintained court estate
• Adequate prison and transport capacity
• Support for victims and witnesses
• Effective disclosure

Changing entitlement to jury trial without resolving these wider problems may reduce some pressure but is unlikely to provide a complete solution.

The Current Position

The criminal court backlog remains close to record levels. The government is increasing investment, removing limits on Crown Court sitting days and implementing national listing reforms.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill proposes more fundamental changes, including judge-alone trials for some intermediate cases and a larger role for magistrates' courts.

Those proposals must complete the parliamentary process before becoming law. Their final form may change as the Bill is debated and amended.

Obtaining Legal Advice

A victim concerned about delay should speak to the police officer, Witness Care Unit or prosecution contact responsible for the case. Specialist victim-support services may also provide practical and emotional assistance.

A defendant facing criminal proceedings should obtain advice from a criminal defence solicitor as early as possible. Anyone detained at a police station is entitled to request independent legal advice.

Strict procedures and time limits apply to bail, evidence, appeals and complaints about the conduct of a case.

Important Information

Solicitors.com is not a firm of solicitors. This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Criminal court procedures, proposed legislation and government policy may change, and their application will depend on the individual case. You should seek advice from a suitably qualified criminal law solicitor before taking or refraining from legal action.