Performance Tracker 2026: Criminal courts

When Labour came into government in July 2024, case backlogs in the criminal courts in England and Wales had been rising almost constantly for years. The open caseload was up 32% in magistrates’ courts and 107% in the crown court since June 2019. ¹⁷⁹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  The average crown court trial in 2024 started more than a year after first being sent to the crown court: 59 weeks. Half of defendants held on remand in prison waiting for their trial were waiting at least four months.^*

At the same time, courts were running less efficiently. More trials were being rescheduled at the last minute, courts were hearing cases fewer hours each day they were in session, and the number of trials being completed had fallen dramatically, particularly in magistrates’ courts. Magistrates’ courts were hearing fewer trials and increasingly delegating work up to the crown court. 

The Starmer government made addressing this backlog and the long delays for cases to be resolved its main priority in the criminal courts, but explicitly focused on the crown court much more than magistrates’ courts. To some extent, this makes sense: the backlog in the crown court is much larger relative to the number of cases dealt with and will take much longer to resolve, and also involves the most serious offences.

But the volume of cases passing through magistrates’ courts is more than 10 times larger – around 1.5m each year, compared to just 120,000 in the crown court. ¹⁸⁰ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  Most of these are minor offences such as speeding or fare evasion, but they also include thousands of violent and sexual offences, including stalking, domestic abuse and other crimes the government is targeting as part of its goal to tackle violence against women and girls.

_{* Not all of these defendants will necessarily have been held in custody for this entire period, as this figure is the total time spent waiting for their trial, including any time spent on bail in the community.}

There are three main levers the government is using to try to address the backlog:

• increasing capacity in the criminal courts
• reducing demand
• improving efficiency

Tackling all of these at once – rather than, say, waiting to see if you can increase efficiency before you commit to increasing funding – is a positive move, even if we query the likely impact of some proposals. It maximises the potential impact and means that even as some measures have stalled (like the Courts and Tribunals Bill), others seem to be having an effect. Critically, efforts to increase the legal workforce seem to be bearing fruit, and faster than might have been expected. There are also early signs that efficiency may be improving in the crown court, and that the backlog may have stabilised.

But this progress remains fragile and has not yet started to bring down the backlog. Since June 2024, the number of open cases in the crown court has risen 14% – rising to 18% once adjusted for case complexity. In magistrates’ courts, it has climbed 29%, and 43% for more serious ‘either-way’ and indictable cases. ¹⁸² Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2026’.  There has been very little progress on structural reforms or attempts to reduce demand coming into the criminal courts, even though the Starmer government argued that this was essential to get to grips with the backlog.

Bringing down the backlog relies on continued investment, particularly in the workforce. The new prime minister and justice secretary should double-down on the Starmer government’s early successes in increasing capacity and boosting efficiency. But they must also make up for the failure to reduce demand by revisiting some of the neglected proposals from Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts. All of these will be necessary if performance in the criminal courts is to improve.

Increasing capacity

The total capacity of the criminal courts is principally a product of funding and the workforce, as well as physical courtrooms themselves. The government funds the courts via ‘sitting days’, which cover the days judges spend hearing cases, as well as through central funding for the HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which covers the administration and management of the courts. But this is only part of the picture. Hearing cases also relies on criminal lawyers to prosecute and defend, and it is this that has been the primary constraint on criminal court capacity in recent years. ¹⁸⁶ House of Commons, Hansard, ‘Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days’, vol 763, 5 March 2025, retrieved 30 September 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-05/debates/04627A5E-E10E-4D14-98EF-9164949B89F4/CourtsAndTribunalsSittingDays

Capacity declined substantially in the criminal courts over the 2010s. Sharp cuts to legal aid funding under the coalition government caused the criminal legal workforce to fall, ¹⁸⁷ Bellamy C, Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid, 2021, GOV.UK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b9f6b08fa8f5037cc5e23f/clar-independent-review-report-2021.pdf  and from the late 2010s a cap was imposed on the number of days the crown court could sit each year. Initially, demand was also declining due to falling crime and fewer charges. But when charges started to stabilise and then recover from 2018, it swiftly became evident that the courts could no longer keep up. When the pandemic hit, jury trials were paused and courts were slow to return to operating at full capacity, causing the backlog to soar.

The criminal courts are closing more cases, thanks to increased investment – but restricting crown court sitting days prevented bigger gains

The criminal courts are currently dealing with significantly more cases than in any other year since the start of the pandemic. The crown court closed 12% more cases in 2025 than in 2023 and 17% more than in 2019. Adjusting for case complexity, this increase was more than a fifth (22%) on 2019. However, cases entering the courts still outstripped cases closed by more than 5%, meaning open cases rose by 8%. ¹⁸⁸ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.

The picture is somewhat less positive in magistrates’ courts, but there has still been an increase in activity. The number of cases closed rose 7% from 2023 to 2025, to return close to 2019 levels (down 3%). Nevertheless, as in the crown court, there were more new cases entering the courts than cases closed, so the backlog jumped 11% from December 2024 to December 2025. The number of open cases is now equal to a quarter of all cases received in 2025. ¹⁹² Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.

There is no earlier data on case numbers, but we know that the number of defendants prosecuted remains significantly lower than in the 2010s, even though a growing proportion of cases – around 60% – are handled via the fast-track single justice procedure. ¹⁹³ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2026’.  This procedure allows a single magistrate to deal with minor, non-imprisonable offences based on written submissions, rather than in a regular court hearing. They are dealt with very quickly, with many cases decided in less than a minute. ¹⁹⁴ Kirk T, ‘Magistrates handing out criminal convictions in private court hearings that last just 90 seconds’, The Standard, 23 September 2022, retrieved 13 October 2025, www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/single-justice-procedure-magistrates-criminal-convictions-b1026894.html

This growth in activity has been driven by substantial funding increases. In the crown court, 30% more ‘sitting days’ were funded in 2025/26 than in 2019/20. ¹⁹⁸ Institute for Government analysis of Sackman S, ‘Courts: Standards’, response to written question for Ministry of Justice, UIN 106170, retrieved 4 October 2026, questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-01-15/106170 and House of Lords Library, Reducing the crown court backlog, 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/reducing-the-crown-court-backlog  There is no specific data on magistrates’ court funding before 2025/26, but overall funding for HMCTS and legal aid spending on the lower courts have both risen in recent years, ¹⁹⁹ HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26, 2026. ^{, 200} Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.  suggesting greater investment has played a role in increasing activity in magistrates’ courts too.

However, more could have been achieved in the crown court if funding had not been restricted in the past two years. During the pandemic, the Conservative government set no limit on the number of days the crown court could sit from 2021/22 to 2023/24, in response to the growing backlog. But in 2024/25, it reintroduced the cap – setting it at 106,000, just below the 107,700 days that had been sat in 2023/24. ²⁰⁶ House of Lords Library, Reducing the crown court backlog, 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/reducing-the-crown-court-backlog

When it took office, the Starmer government maintained the cap, although at a slightly higher level. It proceeded to top this up incrementally, with the cap ultimately reaching 111,250 sitting days for 2025/26. ²⁰⁷ Sackman S, ‘Crown court: opening hours’, response to written question for Ministry of Justice, UIN 83678, 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-10-20/83678  This was just 3% higher than the number of days sat in 2023/24 – strikingly small given the severe problems facing the crown court. For 2026/27, the cap has been removed completely, and the former justice secretary, David Lammy, agreed high allocations for 2027/28 and 2028/29. ²⁰⁸ House of Commons, Hansard, ‘Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations Volume 781: debated on Wednesday 25 February 2026’, 2026, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-02-25/debates/26022552000011/CourtsAndTribunalsSittingDayAllocations

Realistically, the crown court would probably have sat 2–3% more days over the past two years if sitting days had been uncapped in July 2024.^{*, 209} Institute for Government analysis of HM Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘HMCTS management information - March 2026’ and Institute for Government interviews, 2026.  There were not enough lawyers, and potentially not enough judges, to accommodate more than this. That would not have been enough to prevent the backlog from continuing to rise. But it would have helped reduce the rate at which it grew. The cap itself, and the mid-year changes, also created inefficiency and wasted time and effort for lawyers and court admin staff. Because increases to sitting days were repeatedly announced mid-year, trials that had already been cancelled to stay below the cap had to be relisted, creating additional work for listing officers and pointless delays. ²¹⁰ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.

_{* This is an Institute for Government estimate based on interviews, the number of days actually sat in 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26, and the expected number of days that have been funded for 2027/28 (HM Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘Crown court sitting days by financial year from April 2015 to March 2026’, GOV.UK, 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-management-information-march-2026; and House of Commons, Hansard, ‘Written Statements’, 25 February 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-02-25/hlws1365).}

Investment in the workforce is also paying off, but does not go far enough and could have been done more quickly

As demand and funding for the criminal courts fell over the 2010s, so did numbers of criminal lawyers, judges and magistrates. The number of solicitors in criminal legal aid firms declined 31% from 2014/15 to 2023/24. ²¹⁸ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.  The number of publicly funded criminal barristers also fell over a similar period (down 4% from 2015/16 to 2023/24), as did the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) workforce.^* When incoming cases started to rise again, and especially after the pandemic caused the case backlog to balloon rapidly, shortages of legal professionals and magistrates caused serious problems in ramping up capacity, as we outlined in last year’s Public Services Performance Tracker.

Shortages of legal professionals also create inefficiency. Trials are cancelled or rescheduled on the day because there is no lawyer available or the defence or prosecution have not had time to adequately prepare, wasting time for the court, lawyers and witnesses. A lack of legal advisers causes listing problems and inefficiencies in magistrates’ courts. ²¹⁹ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.

The Starmer government agreed with this diagnosis and announced several measures intended to boost the criminal legal workforce, as well as a major recruitment drive for magistrates. 

The CPS, which prosecutes most criminal cases in England and Wales, received a substantial funding boost from the Starmer government in the 2025 spending review. ²²⁰ HM Treasury, Spending review 2025, The Stationery Office, 2025.  The Law Officers’ Department, which funds the CPS, received average annual budget increases of 3.5% in real terms from 2023/24 to 2028/29, although this was heavily frontloaded, with big increases in 2025/26 and 2026/27 and then a freeze in cash terms (a real-terms cut). This allowed the CPS to raise overall staffing levels by 10% from 2024/25 to 2025/26, including increasing the number of crown advocates by more than 10% and paralegals by 20%. ²²¹ Crown Prosecution Service, Annual Report and Accounts 2025–2026, 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.cps.gov.uk/annual-report-accounts-2025-26

The CPS is also shifting focus to increase in-house advocacy roles, rather than using external advocates, ²²² Crown Prosecution Service, Annual Report and accounts 2025–2026, 2026.  which should help ensure more predictable capacity and less last-minute disruption to cases. It has launched a new scheme, Go Prosecute, to bring experienced lawyers back into criminal practice. ²²³ Crown Prosecution Service, ‘CPS offers route back into criminal justice for diverse legal talent amid pressure on courts’, press release, 23 June 2026, retrieved 25 July 2026, www.cps.gov.uk/national-news/news/cps-offers-route-back-criminal-justice-diverse-legal-talent-amid-pressure-courts  This is particularly welcome given the concerns voiced by the CPS inspectorate around inexperienced lawyers affecting the quality of legal decision making. ²²⁴ HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Annual report 2025–26, retrieved 4 October 2026, cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/24/2026/07/HMCPSI-Annual-Report-2025-26.pdf

_{* Consistent data on legal professionals or prosecutors in the CPS is not available.}

A shortage of legal advisers (qualified lawyers within HMCTS who advise magistrates on legal issues) has also held back capacity in magistrates’ courts, with HMCTS citing it as “the main constraint on productivity” in magistrates’ courts in 2024/25. ²⁴¹ HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25, 2025.  Again, there has been progress here, with a big recruitment push in 2024/25 allowing HMCTS to reach its target staffing level. The Starmer government also aimed to improve retention by increasing pay, to bring it closer to other government legal roles (including in the CPS), and by developing more options for career progression within HMCTS. ²⁴² HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25, 2025. ^{, 243} HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26, 2026.  Nonetheless, interviewees indicated that not having enough legal advisers continues to be a problem. ²⁴⁴ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.  It is not clear if this is because HMCTS has not managed to maintain target staffing levels, because those levels are set too low to meet demand, or because a large proportion of legal advisers are still in training, which limits the work they can undertake.

There are also early signs of improvement among defence lawyers. Because most criminal lawyers are either self-employed or work for private firms, the government cannot simply hire more. However, it has increased investment in the workforce, principally by raising criminal legal aid rates. This started under the Johnson government, in response to the independent review of criminal legal aid. The Truss and Sunak governments later increased criminal legal aid fees by 17% for barristers and 11% for solicitors, in cash terms. ²⁴⁵ Comptroller and Auditor General, Government’s management of legal aid, Session 2023-24, HC 514, National Audit Office, 2024, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/governments-management-of-legal-aid.pdf  These were the first cash increases to fees for many years, following cuts of up to 17.5% in cash terms in the 2010s. ²⁴⁶ Bellamy C, Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid, 2021, GOV.UK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b9f6b08fa8f5037cc5e23f/clar-independent-review-report-2021.pdf  However, high rates of inflation meant that, in real terms, fees fell 4.5% for solicitors and rose just 0.6% for barristers from 2021/22 to 2023/24. 

The Starmer government promised cash fee increases of around 12% for solicitors and 11% for barristers. ²⁴⁷ House of Commons Justice Committee, Access to Justice: Legal Aid, Third Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 541), The Stationery Office, 2026.  Nonetheless, once adjusted for inflation, this will leave fees for both solicitors and barristers back around 2021/22 levels in 2026/27: down 1% for solicitors and up around 1% for barristers.^{*, 248} Institute for Government analysis of The Law Society, ‘Criminal legal aid’, 1 December 2025, retrieved 4 October, https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/legal-aid/criminal-legal-aid, Sackman S, ‘Criminal legal aid solicitor fees consultation response - second CI’, correspondence to House of Commons Justice Committee, 6 February 2026, Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal legal aid: proposals for Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme reform’, 26 August 2026, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.gov.uk/government/consultations/criminal-legal-aid-proposals-for-advocates-graduated-fee-scheme-reform/criminal-legal-aid-proposals-for-advocates…, and Institute for Government interviews, 2026.  This is still well below 2010 levels; some estimates suggest real-terms fees will have fallen as much as 42% since 1997. ²⁴⁹ Bellamy C, Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid, 2021, GOV.UK, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b9f6b08fa8f5037cc5e23f/clar-independent-review-report-2021.pdf  Only the significantly greater volume of work currently is making criminal law more financially viable than in 2021/22. The Starmer government was also slow to make these changes: while a small increase of around 1% was announced in December 2024, ²⁵⁰ Ministry of Justice, ‘£24 million boost for criminal legal aid to support most vulnerable’, press release, 14 November 2024, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/24-million-boost-for-criminal-legal-aid-to-support-most-vulnerable  more substantial fee increases were only announced almost a year and a half after the general election, in December 2025. ²⁵¹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Multi-million-pound investment in legal aid to boost access to justice for victims’, press release, 1 December 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multi-million-pound-investment-in-legal-aid-to-boost-access-to-justice-for-victims  This was despite the fact that it was clear in July 2024 that a shortage of criminal lawyers was contributing to the backlog. As of October 2026, the fee increases for barristers announced in December 2025 have still not been implemented.

Under Starmer, the MoJ did take other steps to try to address the shortage of criminal lawyers, including committing itself to improve recruitment at the criminal bar by match-funding 100 new criminal pupillages. ²⁵² House of Commons Justice Committee, Access to Justice: Legal Aid, Third Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 541), The Stationery Office, 2026.  Only around 150 newly called barristers move into full-practice criminal legal aid work each year, so this would be a substantial increase. But having been proposed by the Bar Council in September 2024, ²⁵³ The Bar Council, ‘Match funding criminal pupillages’, 2024, www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/833c15a4-377c-41d4-8fb88e987dc6d686/Bar-Council-match-funding-criminal-pupillages-September-2024.pdf  the Starmer government again only accepted this recommendation in December 2025, and it is not due to be implemented until 2027/28. ²⁵⁴ Lieven N, ‘COIC 27-29 pupillage matched funding’, 14 September 2026, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/coic-27-29-pupillage-matched-funding

However, growing investment does seem to be having tangible results, and faster than might have been expected. Criminal barrister numbers were already rising, with the growing volume of work available and previous fee increases making the profession a more attractive proposition. Solicitors have now started to follow suit. The number of criminal legal aid barristers and solicitors in criminal legal aid firms^** each jumped 6% from 2023/24 to 2024/25 – the first increase for solicitors since 2017/18. ²⁵⁵ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.  This increase is likely due to the increases in fees and the volume of work that pre-dated the Starmer government, given it only took office in July 2024. Nonetheless, it suggests that higher potential income for criminal legal aid work has increased the number of criminal defence lawyers.

In the past year, there has also been a slight increase in duty solicitors (2% from April 2025 to April 2026), although it remains slightly below the level in April 2024. ²⁵⁶ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.  Duty solicitors are specially qualified solicitors who provide publicly funded legal advice in police stations and courts to anyone arrested, or appearing in court and facing potential imprisonment, who does not have their own legal representation. This increase has been almost entirely driven by those under 35 – very welcome, given that more than 40% of duty solicitors are over 55.

_{* It is not possible to work out an exact overall change in fees, due to how changes have been applied to different schemes, but this is a close approximation.}

_{** Data on solicitors specifically engaged in criminal legal aid work is not available, so this figure includes all solicitors in any firms receiving income from criminal legal aid. Around 55–60% of criminal legal aid spending on solicitors goes to firms ‘mainly’ doing criminal legal work, while almost all of the remainder goes to firms doing ‘some’ criminal legal work.} 

The problem is far from solved, however, and it is certainly not clear that these modest fee increases will be enough to restore the criminal legal workforce to sufficient levels to meet demand and improve efficiency in the courts. The Bar Council and Law Society have both expressed serious concerns about the continued viability of criminal legal aid work without a long-term commitment to, at the very least, maintain current fee levels in real terms. ²⁶¹ House of Commons Justice Committee, Access to Justice: Legal Aid, Third Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 541), The Stationery Office, 2026.  In the meantime, many defendants continue to struggle to get legal advice and representation, posing a real problem for access to justice. The justice select committee found that the number of people now representing themselves, with no lawyer, creates an “unacceptably high risk of miscarriages of justice”. ²⁶² House of Commons Justice Committee, Access to Justice: Legal Aid, Third Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 541), The Stationery Office, 2026.  It also continues to cause productivity problems, with widespread reports that hearings where defendants represent themselves take much longer than those where they have lawyers.

The volume of work and swiftness of payment also affect the workforce. Data is not yet available on the number of criminal legal aid providers and the solicitors they employ for 2025/26, but provisional figures for criminal legal aid spending show a real-terms fall of 5% since 2024/25. ²⁶³ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.  This is a worrying sign for whether workforce gains will be maintained. The plans in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to move a large proportion of cases from the crown court to magistrates’ courts also risk undermining progress so far. Far fewer people qualify for legal aid in magistrates’ courts, and fees are also lower, which would substantially reduce both the pool and profitability of legal aid work.

Criminal barristers are also increasingly inexperienced. A growing proportion of criminal legal aid is spent on barristers within three years of qualifying (8% in 2024/25 compared to 4% in 2021/22). Similarly, while overall numbers of criminal legal aid barristers have surpassed 2017/18 levels, the number of KCs^* fell by a quarter over the same period, and shows no signs of recovering. ²⁶⁴ Ministry of Justice, ‘Legal aid statistics: January to March 2026’.

_{* King’s Counsel, or silks, are senior barristers recognised for their excellent advocacy skills. Solicitor advocates can also be appointed as King’s Counsel, but are not included in this dataset.}

Magistrate numbers are not growing fast enough, given the government’s planned reforms

As with criminal lawyers, there is a shortage of magistrates, ²⁷⁰ House of Commons Justice Committee, Access to Justice: Legal Aid, Third Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 541), The Stationery Office, 2026.  with around 15% of magistrate benches in London observed by Transform Justice’s court watchers sitting with two magistrates, rather than three. ²⁷¹ Gibbs P, ‘The slow road to the bench: reforming magistrate recruitment’, blog post, 26 September 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.transformjustice.org.uk/news-insight/the-slow-road-to-the-bench-reforming-magistrate-recruitment  This problem will be massively amplified if the government proceeds with its plans to move a large number of cases out of the crown court and into magistrates’ courts, which the government estimates will increase demand on magistrates’ courts by at least 7%.^*

The Starmer government made some progress in recruiting more magistrates, with a 5% increase in headcount from 2023/24 to 2025/26, taking the total to just over 15,000 in March 2026. ²⁷² Ministry of Justice, ‘Judicial diversity statistics’, 2026.  Reforms to the recruitment process, including recruiting on an ongoing basis, do seem to be shortening the time it takes to appoint people and increasing the headcount. More magistrates were appointed from April to June 2026 than in any previous quarter. ²⁷³ Ministry of Justice, ‘Judicial diversity statistics’, 2026.

However, numbers are still a long way short of what is needed to meet the MoJ target of 21,000 magistrates by 2028/29. That would require an increase of more than 10% each year, more than double the 4% increase between March 2025 and March 2026. The justice committee argued that the government’s goal was unrealistic, and that it should produce a plan to increase the use of salaried district judges to meet growing demand in magistrates’ courts. ²⁷⁴ House of Commons Justice Committee, Courts and Tribunals Bill, First Report of Session 2026–27 (HC 192), The Stationery Office, 2026.

_{* The government estimates an additional 8,500 sitting days will be required in magistrates’ courts, around 7.5% of the 114,000 days funded for 2025/26. Institute for Government analysis of Ministry of Justice, ‘Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural criminal court reform) impact assessment’, 2026, and Lammy D, Hansard, ‘Written statement: Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations’, 25 February 2026, HCWS1362.}

Diversity is also still a big problem in the recruitment of magistrates. Of serving magistrates, 81% are over the age of 50 and 57% are women, while only 14% are from a minority ethnic group. ²⁸⁴ Ministry of Justice, ‘Judicial diversity statistics’, 2026.  Despite attempts to reform the recruitment process and attract a more diverse pool of applicants, new appointees continue to be nonrepresentative in various ways, and certain applicants have much higher success rates than others. In 2025/26, 21% of white applicants were successfully appointed, compared to 10% each for Black and Asian applicants. 19% of all applicants were successful, but those in professional roles were more likely to be appointed (22%) while those who had not attended university (14%) or who were under the age of 40 (16%) were much less likely to be successful. And of newly appointed magistrates, 13% had attended a fee-paying school, ²⁸⁵ Ministry of Justice, ‘Judicial diversity statistics’, 2026.  compared to just 7% of the UK population. ²⁸⁶ Social Mobility Commission, ‘Elitism in Britain, 2019’, press release, GOV.UK, 24 June 209, retrieved 2 October 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019

Reducing demand

The Starmer government’s attempts to reduce demand on the courts met with limited success

The centrepiece of the Starmer government’s efforts to tackle the crown court backlog was the Courts and Tribunals Bill. In its original form, this proposed major structural reforms to the criminal courts, inspired by – although in many places different from – the recommendations set out by Sir Brian Leveson in part one of the independent review of the criminal courts. ²⁸⁷ Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-1  The principal effect of these reforms would have been to roughly halve the number of cases heard by a jury, through several measures:

• removing the right of defendants charged with an ‘either-way’ offence^* to choose to be tried in the crown court (known as the right to elect)
• increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from 12 months to up to 24 months (with the intention to initially set them at 18 months)
• setting up a new branch of the crown court, the Crown Court Bench Division, where a single judge will hear either-way cases expected to result in a sentence of up to three years
• introducing the option for judge-alone trials for certain fraud and financial crime cases

The proposals would also remove the automatic right of appeal to the crown court for cases that are heard in magistrates’ courts.

In October 2026, the justice secretary Alex Norris confirmed that the government would not proceed with introducing judge-alone trials, except in cases of complex fraud, money laundering and similar offences. However, it still plans to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers and abolish the right to choose a jury trial. ²⁸⁸ Ministry of Justice, ‘Justice reforms to be rolled out faster as Justice Secretary sets out changes to Courts Bill’, press release, GOV.UK, 4 October 2026, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-reforms-to-be-rolled-out-faster-as-justice-secretary-sets-out-changes-to-courts-bill  These would still be radical reforms that would reduce jury trials by around a third.

As set out in our previous reports on jury trials, these measures would likely reduce overall demand on the courts, although probably not as much as the government hopes. What is more, while they would save time in the crown court, they would substantially increase demand on magistrates’ courts, where the backlog is already growing faster than in the crown court. The crown court backlog has increased by 14% since the general election, while the magistrates’ court open caseload has risen 29% – and 43% for the more serious and complex ‘either-way’ and ‘indictable only’ cases. Half of trials in magistrates’ courts now take around six months or longer from charge to the case completing. ²⁸⁹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2026’.

The justification for maintaining judge-alone trials for fraud, false accounting, money laundering and related offences is relatively weak, as set out by Jonathan Fisher KC in his recent independent review of fraud. ²⁹⁰ Fisher J, Fraud in the digital age: Independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, CP 1600, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a561efb9e63154454413629/2025.12.31.Independent.Review.of.Disclosure.and.Fraud.Second.Report.Print.Ver…  Many cases across different offence types are serious and complex, and it is not clear why fraud should be treated differently by not being dealt with by a jury. The fundamental question in a fraud trial is whether someone has acted dishonestly, by the “standards of ordinary, decent people”, which is exactly the value the jury is intended to provide. ²⁹¹ Fisher J, Fraud in the digital age: Independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, CP 1600, p.202 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a561efb9e63154454413629/2025.12.31.Independent.Review.of.Disclosure.and.Fraud.Second.Report.Print.Ver…

Public confidence matters. Trying fraud without a jury risks the perception of opacity or special treatment, particularly in high-profile economic cases of political interest. Jury trial keeps proceedings intelligible in open court to defendants, victims, the media and the public. Remove the jury, and that civic ownership of criminal justice is undermined. Also, it would feed the narrative that powerful defendants are judged behind closed professional doors.  – Jonathan Fisher KC ²⁹² Fisher J, Fraud in the digital age: Independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, CP 1600, p.203, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a561efb9e63154454413629/2025.12.31.Independent.Review.of.Disclosure.and.Fraud.Second.Report.Print.Ver…

_{* An ‘either-way’ or ‘triable-either-way’ offence is one that can be heard in either a magistrates’ court or the crown court, depending on the severity and complexity of the case and if the defendant chooses to exercise their right to be tried in the crown court.}

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was not the only way the Starmer government tried to reduce demand on the courts. One early step it took was to increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers from six months (for a single offence) to 12, in November 2024. ³⁰⁰ Ministry of Justice, ‘Increased sentencing powers for magistrates to address prisons crisis’, press release, 17 October 2024, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/increased-sentencing-powers-for magistrates-to-address-prisons-crisis  This does seem to have saved time in the crown court. The proportion of eligible cases that were sent to the crown court for sentencing, after the defendant had been convicted or pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court, fell from 18% in 2024 to 14% in 2025. ³⁰¹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  That is equivalent to around 6,200 hours saved in the crown court – 2% of the total time sat in 2025 – although this drop may have been affected by changes in other factors, such as average offence severity.

It is less clear, however, that raising sentencing powers further would have a substantial additional impact. Currently, only around a third of sentences of between six and 12 months are given out by magistrates’ courts, and this has been largely consistent since magistrates’ sentencing powers were changed in November 2024. ³⁰² Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal justice statistics quarterly: December 2025’.  This suggests that magistrates are less confident in passing sentence for this cohort of defendants – and that is even more likely to be true for sentences up to 18 months or two years.

One alternative to raising magistrates’ sentencing powers would be to reclassify some ‘either-way’ offences (which can be tried in magistrates’ courts or the crown court) as ‘summary only’ (which can only be tried and sentenced in magistrates’ courts). This was a recommendation put forward by Leveson in his review of the criminal courts, along with a list of proposed offences to be reclassified. ³⁰³ Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-1  Reclassifying offences as summary only would limit the maximum sentence that could be imposed, but as Leveson suggested, this could be set at 12 months in prison for these offences, rather than the existing six-month maximum for most summary offences. 

This would likely be much less controversial and pose a lower risk of injustice than completely abolishing defendants’ right to elect for a crown court trial across a much broader range of offences, or further increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, while having a similar effect for the offences concerned. The right to choose a crown court trial could also be limited, rather than abolished completely. In more complex, serious cases where the defendant potentially faces a lengthy prison sentence, a crown court trial offers a higher standard of justice than summary justice in a magistrates’ court. If the government does proceed with restricting the right to elect, it should be limited to less serious either-way cases, where the defendant faces a maximum prison sentence of two years or less – in line with Leveson’s recommendation. ³⁰⁴ Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-1

A further recommendation from Leveson that the Starmer government did not pursue was encouraging greater use of out-of-court resolutions – such as cautions, community resolutions or police fines – to keep cases out of magistrates’ courts. In fact, the new 
police performance framework, published in early 2026, ³⁰⁵ Home Office, ‘Police performance framework’, GOV.UK, 26 January 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-performance-framework  pushes in the other direction on crimes associated with violence against women and girls. By focusing specifically on charges over out-of-court resolutions for these crime types, it risks driving up demand on magistrates’ courts at the same time as the MoJ is trying to reduce it.

Improving efficiency

Early signs suggest some improvement in crown court efficiency – but hearing hours per day remain very low

In last year’s Public Services Performance Tracker, we identified the shortage of legal professionals, poor court administration and crumbling physical and IT infrastructure as key drivers of poor court productivity. Sir Brian Leveson largely agreed with this diagnosis in part two of his independent review of the criminal courts, which focused on court efficiency. He also highlighted the role of increasing case and trial complexity – for instance, with additional rules on the disclosure of unused evidence – and poor working relationships between different criminal justice agencies, particularly the CPS and the police. ³⁰⁶ Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, GOV.UK, 2025, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-1

The crown court ‘productivity gap’ seems to have narrowed in the past year. This is the difference between the number of cases that would have been closed if the court had maintained 2016 efficiency levels, and the number of cases actually dealt with. The improvement in the last year has been driven by an increase in the number and complexity of cases being closed each day the crown court is sitting.

This is an encouraging sign, after several years of efficiency declining or stagnating. But there is an important caveat. The improvement has been driven by a fall in the average number of hours spent on each case, dropping 5% from 3.3 hours in 2024 to 3.1 hours in 2025 and 3.2 in the first six months of 2026. ³⁰⁹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2026’.  The number of hours actually spent in hearings each day did not improve at all, and remained 17% below 2016 levels at 3.15 hours per day. In the first quarter of 2026, it fell even further, to just 2.9 hours per day. ³¹⁰ Institute for Government analysis of Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2026’ and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘HMCTS management information - March 2026’.  So while courts are getting through more cases per day, they are hearing fewer hours per day.

The high rate of trials being rescheduled on the day is likely to be contributing to courts hearing fewer hours. So too are delays to prisoner transport, which interviewees consistently highlighted as a major source of delay and inefficiency in both magistrates’ courts and the crown court. ³¹⁸ Institute for Government interview, 2026.  Relatively few trials are rescheduled for this reason, but there is no reliable data on how many are delayed, sometimes for several hours. Poor court administration and crumbling infrastructure are also likely contributing to ongoing problems increasing hearing hours per day.

The fall in average hearing time is driven primarily by more serious ‘indictable only’ cases and cases where the defendant is held in custody (both down 9% from 2024 to 2025). ³¹⁹ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  This may be because courts are prioritising these cases for trial: these cases are starting more quickly after they arrive at the crown court, particularly where the defendant pleads not guilty. The average indictable only case where the defendant was in custody started a little over a week sooner (5%) and took an hour less time to hear (10%) in 2025 than in 2024. Where the defendant pleaded not guilty, the trial started three and a half weeks (8%) sooner and took 1.3 hours less to hear. 

Prioritising these cases means they do not take as much time in court. Cases that wait longer to start tend to take longer to hear, especially when the defendant is in custody, because there are more intermediate hearings such as bail applications. Increases in the legal workforce may also have contributed to this improvement by making it easier to find qualified lawyers to hear these more complex cases, reducing delays. 

If this greater efficiency can be sustained, it would be hugely welcome. But it must be combined with renewed efforts to increase the number of hours heard per sitting day. This requires bringing down the number of trials rescheduled on the day of trial, ensuring prisoners are delivered to court on time and improving physical and IT infrastructure in courts.

There is much less detailed data available about efficiency in magistrates’ courts, but they also seem to be suffering from serious productivity problems, as we explored in last year’s Performance Tracker. Transform Justice’s Courtwatch project, in which volunteers observe proceedings in London magistrates’ courts, has highlighted major inefficiencies and unnecessary delays. ³²⁰ Thomson E, Ratcliffe F and Gibbs P, Beyond reasonable delay: efficiency in London magistrates’ courts, Transform Justice, 2026, www.transformjustice.org.uk/publication/beyond-reasonable-delay-efficiency-in-london magistrates-courts-2  We also heard from interviewees that the centralised telephone system for the courts – intended to improve efficiency – is making it much harder to contact local courts, causing further problems with listing and flagging potential issues with upcoming hearings in a timely manner. ³²¹ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.

Too many trials are still being rescheduled at the last minute

Frequent, often last-minute trial cancellations and rescheduling are a major source of inefficiency in criminal courts, as well as having a serious negative impact on victims, witnesses and defendants. They waste lots of time for lawyers and judges in preparation, for witnesses who attend (including professional witnesses such as police officers) and for court listing officers and other case management staff who then have to find another slot for the trial – sometimes weeks or months away. ³²² Institute for Government interviews, 2025 and 2026.

This problem is widely recognised, but there has been no improvement in the past year. The number of trials rescheduled on the day remains substantially above pre-pandemic levels in both magistrates’ courts (22% of scheduled trials^*) and the crown court (25%). ³²³ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  Moreover, these high rates have become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: because so many trials are cancelled or rescheduled on the day, courts list more cases to hear, to try to avoid empty slots in their schedules. This then inevitably leads to more cases not being heard at the last minute, but these cases still take up time for participants and can cause misery and frustration for victims, witnesses and defendants. In 2025, 7.5% of all scheduled trials were rescheduled because of overlisting or another case overrunning – up from 6% in 2024 and 3.2% in 2016. ³²⁴ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.

_{* Scheduled trials here refers to trials that reach the day of trial without being cancelled or re-listed; it does not include vacated trials which are cancelled or rescheduled before the trial date.}

However, there has been a small improvement in the number of trials in the crown court rescheduled on the day specifically because the prosecution or defence lawyer was absent, likely reflecting the increase in the workforce discussed above. This dropped from 3.7% of scheduled trials in 2024 to 2.2% in 2025, although it remains much higher than the 0.3–0.5% that was typical before the pandemic. ³²⁷ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.

Trials are not only rescheduled on the day. The number of trials listed and then cancelled or rescheduled in advance of the trial has been rising sharply, especially in the crown court, and is at record highs. In 2016, there were six trials in the crown court that started as planned for every 10 that were rescheduled or cancelled. ³²⁸ Ministry of Justice, ‘Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2026’.  In 2025, there were just three. Some of the rise in rescheduling and cancellations has been due to more cases being dropped and more guilty pleas being entered after a trial date has been set. But 15% of trials rescheduled or cancelled before the day of trial were due to a lack of enough court time – up from 10% in 2016.

These changes are not as disruptive as trials rescheduled on the day. But they still put a substantial burden on the system, particularly in terms of additional work for case management staff in the courts.

There has been limited progress on efficiency initiatives

Part two of the independent review of the criminal courts, published in February 2026, included extensive recommendations about how to improve efficiency in the criminal courts. ³⁴⁰ Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2, GOV.UK, 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-2  The Criminal Courts Improvement Group, a cross-system forum run by the judiciary, has also focused extensively on driving efficiency, including through better case management, listing reforms and the use of AI. ³⁴¹ Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, ‘Criminal Courts Improvement Group (CCIG)’, 2022, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/criminal-court-improvement-group  But as yet, relatively few changes have been implemented.

The Starmer government piloted a case co-ordinator role in some areas, intended to support more efficient case management. The courts minister promised an evaluation of this in the autumn of 2025; ³⁴² Sackman S, ‘Trials: Standards’, written question for Ministry of Justice, UIN 47354, 23 April 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-23/47354  this has not been published, but in February 2026 the then justice secretary, David Lammy, committed to expanding these roles to all crown court centres. ³⁴³ Lammy D, ‘We are calling time on the justice system of the past’, speech, 24 February 2026, retrieved 4 October 2026, www.gov.uk/government/speeches/we-are-calling-time-on-the-justice-system-of-the-past  There was no significant increase in the HMCTS workforce from 2023/24 to 2025/26, which remains more than a fifth smaller than in 2010/11 (although a similar size to 2015/16). ³⁴⁴ HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26, 2026.  This suggests there has not yet been a substantial investment in administrative or case management capacity.

Other initiatives include setting up blitz courts in several areas, which aim to deal with similar cases in batches to increase efficiency. It is possible that these are contributing to the decrease in average hearing time per case. However, as blitz courts typically do not deal with the most serious cases, which have accounted for most of the fall, they are unlikely to be a major factor. 

The lady chief justice has recently published a new direction on listing, which is intended both to help list cases in the criminal courts more efficiently, and to prioritise cases based on “the human impact of delay”, including on any vulnerable witnesses and defendants held in custody. This came into effect in October 2026. It sets out seven different tiers of priority for cases in the crown court, based on the vulnerability of any witnesses, victims or defendants, the potential impact of delay on evidence quality and other key factors. ³⁴⁵ Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Practice direction on listing in the criminal courts, 2026, www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Practice-Direction-on-Listing-in-the-Criminal-Courts.pdf

The practice direction also creates two kinds of trial listing: fixed date or flexible date. Fixed dates should be given where there is “a high level of confidence that a court and judge will be available to commence the trial on that date”, while flexible dates are intended to be heard within a specified week. The priority tiers will be used to allocate trials either a fixed date or flexible date.^* Three weeks before the trial, courts must hold a case progression meeting to review the case and consider if it needs to be relisted. 

This approach is intended to reduce the number of rescheduled trials, particularly trials rescheduled on the day, and ensure that trials that are rescheduled generally do not involve vulnerable people. Whether it will work in practice is a different question. Advocates are likely to struggle to hold an entire week free waiting for a flexible listing to be confirmed, given how low legal aid fees still are for many cases. There is therefore a real risk that when the court comes to fix a date for the hearing, the advocate is no longer available and someone else will have to be found at short notice. ³⁴⁶ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.

Prison capacity may also make this approach to listing difficult to implement. The focus on human impact is likely to mean that serious cases where the defendant is on bail, especially rape and other serious sexual offences cases, are prioritised. But if this means less focus on hearing remand cases, especially less serious ones, it is likely to ramp up pressure on prison capacity once more. Given how tight prison capacity is expected to be over the next few years, this could fundamentally undermine the ambition behind the new practice direction.

Ultimately, the intention is that the practice direction will form the backbone of an AI-powered national listing tool that interfaces with Common Platform, the case management software in the criminal courts. But there is little information available about how this will work, and severe problems during the rollout of Common Platform mean that it is still a source of frustration and mistrust for many people working in and with the courts. ³⁴⁷ Institute for Government interviews, 2026.  The framework is also complex, and it may prove more difficult, rather than less, to prioritise case listing with so many different tiers of priority.

Other factors continue to be a drag on court efficiency. There is a £1.3bn maintenance backlog in the courts,^** meaning that leaks, broken fire alarms and tech failures continue to take courtrooms out of action or delay hearings. ³⁴⁸ Winter J, ‘Repairs under way after court room water leak’, BBC News, 11 November 2025, retrieved 4 October 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm27rzje4y4o  In the meantime, capital spending by HMCTS has continued to be relatively low. The HMCTS capital budget in 2024/25 was 19% lower in real terms than in 2023/24, and was also significantly underspent – so actual capital spending dropped by almost 30%. ³⁴⁹ Institute for Government analysis of Ministry of Justice, Annual report and accounts: 2023 to 2024, 2024 and Ministry of Justice, Annual report and accounts: 2024 to 2025, 2025.  The Starmer government increased maintenance spending within HMCTS by around a third in real terms from 2024/25 to 2025/26, reaching £162m across capital and day-to-day maintenance spending. ³⁵⁰ HM Courts & Tribunals Service, HM Courts & Tribunals Service Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26, 2026.  Further large increases in the HMCTS capital budget are planned for 2026/27 (up 37% on 2025/26 in real terms) and 2028/29 (up 95% on 2025/26 in real terms). By 2028/29 it will reach around £410m in 2026/27 prices. However, even this is likely to make limited progress against such a large maintenance backlog.

^{* Tiers 1, 2 and 5–7 should all get a fixed trial date. These include cases involving a death, with a highly vulnerable victim, witness or defendant, or where delay is likely to be particularly detrimental to the evidence or proceedings, as well as any case allocated to a high court judge, the terrorism cases list or the economic crime list, or which is likely to take more than five days at trial.}

^{** In 2025/26 prices (UK Parliament, ‘Courts: repairs and maintenance’, written questions and answers, 10 October 2025, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-10-10/7887.}

Conclusion

On headline numbers, the Starmer government failed in its quest to lower court backlogs. Since the general election, the crown court backlog has climbed almost 15% and the magistrates’ court by over 30% – and both have seen even larger increases for more complex cases. Structural reforms to reduce demand were delayed for several months in 2026, likely in part due to the change of prime minister and period of instability that preceded this. Key efficiency metrics, such as the rate of trials rescheduled on the day, remain very poor and the number of hours in hearings per day in the crown court has sunk to an all-time low. 

Pressure across the criminal justice system also continues to cause problems for courts. There is no joined-up strategic view across the system, which means that the impact of changes in one part of the system on the other organisations within it is not properly considered or understood. For example, poor case file quality can cause significant delays in bringing cases to court ³⁵² Leveson B, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2, GOV.UK, 2026, retrieved 25 September 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-criminal-courts-part-2  or mean that cases are charged when they should not be, or vice versa. And yet case file quality is not one of the more than 70 metrics in the new police performance framework. 

Instead, the framework largely focuses on the number of charges for key offences – discouraging the use of other positive outcomes such as cautions and so potentially increasing demand on already stretched magistrates’ courts. Nor are potential restructures, in both courts and policing, likely to improve cross-agency working. These changes cause significant disruption and often mean services are focused inwards on their own reorganisation, rather than building relationships with partners. In this context, a coherent strategic approach to the criminal justice system as a whole seems a long way off.

But there is some cause for cautious optimism. Rising numbers of criminal lawyers across HMCTS, the CPS, defence firms and the bar are very encouraging, and should continue to have positive effects on capacity and efficiency as new starters bed in and gain experience. The reduction in average hearing time and waiting time for serious cases where defendants are held in custody are major achievements, and if they can be sustained will have a real positive impact not only on the courts system but also on people affected by those cases: victims, defendants and their families. There will also be positive spillover effects on prisons, with the number of people on remand awaiting trial or sentencing already having fallen almost 10% from its peak in June 2025 to March 2026.

Maintaining and building on these improvements will require ongoing investment in the criminal legal workforce and in administrative and case management capacity in the courts. The new government should focus its efficiency efforts on driving up hearing hours per sitting day in the crown court and disposals per day in magistrates’ courts. The potential gains here are likely to outweigh the highly uncertain benefits from major structural reform, where the government should tread extremely carefully to avoid tipping magistrates’ courts over into disaster.

Recommendations

• Scrap plans to introduce judge-only trials for fraud trials, and to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers and restrict appeals from magistrates’ courts.
• Reclassify minor ‘either-way’ offences as summary only, in line with Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation. Allow a maximum sentence of a year in custody for these offences.
• Maintain the right to elect for trial in the crown court for more serious either-way offences. If the government wants to abolish this right for some cases, it should only do so for offences where the maximum sentence is two years or less, as Leveson recommended.
• If the government wants to grow, or even maintain, the criminal legal workforce, it must further increase legal aid fees to a sustainable level and then commit to a means of adjusting fees in response to inflation and demand, such as a pay review body.
• Develop a realistic plan to recruit enough people to deal with the increased workload in magistrates’ courts. This is likely to require a combination of district judges and magistrates.