Reducing the crown court backlog

Approximate read time: 22 minutes

This briefing has been prepared for the 20 March 2025 House of Lords debate:

Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench) to move that this House takes note of the crown court criminal case backlog, and the impact of delays on reliability of evidence, experience of victims and fairness of proceedings for defendants.

1. Measuring the crown court backlog

There is not a standard definition of what is meant by the ‘backlog’ of cases in the court system.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) measure the open caseload in the crown court in England and Wales.^[1] The ‘open caseload’ represents the number of active cases in the courts at a particular time. This includes cases that are awaiting trial, being tried and awaiting sentencing. The caseload is determined by the flow of cases entering the court system (receipts) and the flow of cases completed by the courts (disposals). When the rate of receipts exceeds the rate of disposals, the open caseload increases.

The MoJ and HMCTS have said there is a level of open caseload required for criminal courts to run efficiently and effectively.^[2] Anything below this level could result in empty courtrooms with too few cases for judges to try, whereas anything above this level could lead to increased delays as cases take longer to move through the court system. However, the optimal level is not quantified. This is because the level required depends upon the nature of cases and the capacity to hear them, both of which vary. As such, the MoJ does not distinguish between cases that form part of the expected caseload and additional cases that constitute a backlog.

In the National Audit Office’s (NAO) report ‘Reducing the backlog in the crown court’ (5 March 2025), it defined the backlog as all cases waiting to be heard or completed.^[3] However, it acknowledged that this definition did not distinguish between the level of open caseload that HMCTS considered necessary for the courts to function efficiently and effectively, and cases that exceed this caseload. This briefing uses the NAO’s definition of the backlog.

2. What the current open caseload is

The open caseload in the England and Wales crown court reached a record high of 73,105 criminal cases at the end of September 2024, according to the latest MoJ figures.^[4] This was an increase of 3% on the previous quarter (71,042 cases), 10% on the previous year (66,426 cases) and almost double since the end of 2019 (38,016 cases). Figure 1 shows the open caseload in the crown court since 2016:

Figure 1. Crown court open caseload, England and Wales, 2016 to 2024

The largest increase in the open caseload compared to the previous year was seen for offences of violence against the person (21%), sexual offences (18%) and public order offences (14%).^[5] An increase in caseloads was seen across all regions, with the south east reporting the largest open caseload at the end of September 2024 (15,985 cases).

There were 16,505 cases that had been open for one year or more at the end of September 2024.^[6] This was 1% less than the previous year (16,645). However, the data showed the number of cases open for one year or more had increased sharply since the Covid-19 pandemic, peaking in September 2022 and falling slightly ever since.

The median waiting time for defendants to receive their first main hearing was 8.1 weeks in Q3 2024.^[7] Whilst this was an 8% decrease on the previous year (8.9 weeks), it remained significantly above pre-pandemic levels of 5.0 weeks in Q3 2019. ‘Waiting time’ refers to the duration between a case being received at the crown court and the first main hearing.

The median hearing time of ‘for trial’ cases where defendants pleaded not guilty was 11.0 hours.^[8] This was an 8% decrease when compared to the previous year (11.9 hours) and the lowest reported value since 2017.

On crown court timeliness (‘end-to-end’), the median duration from an offence being committed to the defendant’s case being completed at court was 355 days in Q3 2024.^[9] This was a decrease of 8% from 384 days in Q3 2023. However, the MoJ said this latest estimate remained well above pre-pandemic levels of 253 days in Q3 2019. ‘End-to-end’ timeliness is used to measure the time taken from an offence being committed to its passage through the key stages of the criminal justice system. This includes charging, passage through the magistrates’ courts and subsequent completion of a defendant’s case at the crown court.

3. Causes of the backlog

The backlog has been attributed to a variety of factors. The NAO’s report ‘Reducing the backlog in the crown court’ (March 2025) referred to several causes, including the following:

• Fewer disposals: Between 2021 and 2023, the crown court disposed of significantly fewer cases than the MoJ had projected.^[10] This was despite the level of receipts being consistently lower than the MoJ’s projections for that period. In 2022, the MoJ told the NAO it would reduce the open caseload to 53,000 by 2025. Since then, the MoJ has argued that industrial action in 2022 by criminal defence barristers stemmed this progress.
• More ‘ineffective trials’: The proportion of trials that do not go ahead on the day scheduled (referred to as ineffective trials) has increased.^[11] According to the NAO report, the proportion of ineffective trials increased from 16% in 2019 to 27% in 2023. Key reasons included witness and defendant unavailability, poor case preparation, over-listing of cases and unavailability of barristers. Additionally, the report said some cases had started late or had been postponed because prisoner transport services had failed to get prisoners to court on time. The NAO said this had lengthened case times and contributed to an increase in the backlog. The latest MoJ figures showed the ineffective trial rate at the crown court remained higher than before the pandemic, at 25% in September 2024.^[12]
• Fewer criminal law barristers and solicitors: The number of criminal law barristers that completed any public criminal work decreased by 10% between 2016–17 and 2021–22.^[13] Additionally, the number of government-contracted criminal law duty solicitors providing criminal legal aid reduced by 25% between 2017 and 2023. The NAO referred to Bar Council reports that had shown criminal law barristers often reported poor remuneration, stressful working conditions, lower levels of wellbeing and lower earnings when compared to other practice areas. Additionally, the level of legal aid fees had reduced by one-third in real terms between 2008 and 2021, according to findings from the independent review of criminal legal aid in November 2021. The NAO also noted the government’s real-term spending on criminal legal aid had reduced by 43% between 2010–11 and 2022–23, partly due to reduced case volumes.
• Crown court hearings taking longer: The average hearing length for cases has increased by 12% from 2019 to 2023, from 3.4 hours to 3.8 hours.^[14] Several factors were attributed to this, including a higher proportion of complex cases being received in the crown court. Additionally, the NAO said there had been more instances of defendants either pleading not guilty or pleading guilty later in the court process.

Some legal professionals have also attributed the backlog to a reduction in court sitting days.^[15] ‘Sitting days’ refers to the number of days that judges sit in court each year.^[16] For each financial year, the MoJ decides how many sitting days are needed to deal with the open caseload effectively. This decision is based on forecasts produced by MoJ analysts, as well as discussions with various criminal justice system stakeholders. Sitting days were capped in 2019 to 85,000, and then uncapped in 2021/22 to help clear the backlog.^[17] Most recently, the government has committed to increase sitting days to 110,000 in the 2025/26 financial year.^[18] This followed a previous increase from 106,000 to 106,500 sitting days as announced in September 2024, followed by an increase to 108,500 as announced in December 2024.^[19] Sam Townend KC, former chair of the Bar Council in 2024, has argued that restoring the uncapped sitting days policy was important to reducing court backlogs.^[20]

Most recently, the MoJ has attributed the backlog to the recruitment of over 20,000 additional police officers since 2019 which it argued has led to an increase in crime prosecutions.^[21] Additionally, it also referred to an increase in the number of complex cases that take longer to conclude coming through the system.

4. Impact on victims, witnesses and defendants

Delays caused by the backlog have a significant impact on victims’ lives and victim services, according to Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove’s latest report ‘Justice delayed: The impact of the crown court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice system’ (March 2025). Court delays were shown to have caused significant stress for victims, resulting in many experiencing physical and mental health deterioration.^[22] The commissioner said some victims had turned to drugs, alcohol or self-harm, with some attempting suicide due to overwhelming stress. Delays meant that victims remained stuck in the criminal justice process which hinders their recovery from the crime. Additionally, repeated adjournments forced victims to re-live their trauma which exacerbated their emotional distress. The delays had also impacted some victims’ employment, disrupted their education and placed strain on their relationships which impacted their support networks. The commissioner said longer waiting times were also likely to impact victims and witnesses’ recollection of events, therefore reducing the quality of their evidence over time. The report said this meant supportive prosecution witnesses were also more likely to withdraw.

Victims’ access to support services was also impacted by court delays due to an increase in service demand.^[23] The commissioner said many support service staff had reported unsustainable caseloads, with some raising concerns about compromised support quality due to overwhelming demand. Delays were also shown to have eroded victim confidence in the justice system.^[24] The commissioner said this had led some victims to disengage from the process and, in many cases, completely withdraw.^[25]

To address these issues, the commissioner has called on the government to improve the victim experience of the criminal justice system, make court processes more transparent and efficient, and ensure victims services can support victims as they await their cases getting to trial.^[26]

Defendants have also been impacted by the backlog. Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones referred to the unfairness of the trial delays to “defendants who are waiting an excessive time, sometimes on remand, to establish their guilt or innocence”.^[27] As at 31 December 2024, the number of people held in custody whilst awaiting trial or sentence was 17,023, 20% of the total prison population.^[28] The ‘remand prison population’ was 6% higher than the previous year and the highest ‘as at 31 December’ level for at least 50 years. According to HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), the increasing average length of time people spent remanded in custody meant that many required additional support.^[29] For instance, it said this group were at greater risk of losing their accommodation, employment and custody of their children (especially women). HMIP also noted the implications that a high remand prison population had on existing prison capacity pressure. It said:

Remand populations tend to be more transient, place the greatest pressure on prison reception and induction units, and take up very substantial amounts of staff time. They can therefore pose challenges to the stability of a jail. At HMP Manchester we reported on very poor time out of cell, in part due to curtailments that were as a result of more staff needing to escort remanded men to court and back.^[30]

Academics have also highlighted the impact of the backlog on the submission of guilty pleas.^[31] A defendant who pleads guilty can have their sentence reduced and court process expedited. Dr Isla Masson, senior lecturer in criminology at The Open University, and Dr Natalie Booth, senior lecturer at Bath Spa University, referred to evidence of a desire by some of the remand prison population to enter guilty pleas in order to reduce the waiting time caused by the delays in courts. They noted how this could be seen as an attractive option for some held on remand, regardless of their own or loved ones’ belief and acceptance of guilt. They warned that additional pressure on defendants to plead guilty for a reduction in sentence to reduce the court backlog would be unethical.

5. Government announcements

The Labour government has announced several measures aimed at increasing crown court capacity and easing pressure within prison populations. For instance, the MoJ increased sentencing powers for magistrates with effect from November 2024.^[32] This allowed magistrates to hand down prison sentences of up to 12 months, double the previous limit of six months. The government said this change would divert 2,000 cases away from the crown court to ensure more time could be reserved for the most serious and complex cases.

In November 2024, the MoJ also announced £24mn of additional funding for criminal legal aid work.^[33] It said this would fund increases to criminal legal aid fees for solicitors who work in police stations and youth courts. Those uplifts came into force on 6 December 2024. Additionally, in December 2024, the government announced an additional £92mn per year for criminal legal aid solicitors to help address ongoing challenges.^[34] Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood said this was a “12% increase in funding, on top of the 12% announced in response to the criminal legal aid independent review”.

Additionally, on 5 March 2025, ministers announced new funding to increase the number of crown court sitting days to 110,000 in the 2025/26 financial year, up from 108,500 for the previous year.^[35] It said this would see courts sitting at the highest allocation since records began.

The lord chancellor also confirmed the government would keep Nightingale courts under review.^[36] ‘Nightingale courts’ were temporary courts first set up in August 2020 to provide additional court capacity in response to the social distancing requirements of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Nightingale courts programme delivered 60 courtrooms by the end of March 2021, reaching 72 by July 2021.^[37] Since the pandemic, the government has continued to operate some of these Nightingale courts where required. As of 3 February 2025, there were 16 courtrooms in operation across seven venues.^[38]

However, the lord chancellor has acknowledged that these measures will still not be enough to reduce the backlog.^[39] She has warned that even with record levels of funding, “bolder measures” were needed. With this in mind, the government announced the independent review of criminal courts on 12 December 2024.^[40] Sir Brian Leveson, a former high court judge and president of the Queen’s Bench Division, and current investigatory powers commissioner, is leading the review. The aim of the review is to produce recommendations to address existing crown court pressures and improve efficiency in the court system.

Options for both long- and short-term reforms are being considered as part of the review.^[41] This includes introducing an ‘intermediate court’ that would hear cases too serious for magistrates’ courts but not serious enough for the crown court. Intermediate courts would be heard by a judge, flanked by magistrates.^[42] Other reform options being considered include consideration of magistrates’ sentencing powers and reclassification of certain offences.^[43] Initial review recommendations are expected to be published by spring 2025. The review will build upon previous reviews such as the 2001 review of the criminal courts in England and Wales by Lord Justice Auld, and the 2015 report into efficiency in criminal proceedings by Sir Brian Leveson.^[44]

The Labour Party’s 2024 general election manifesto also contained a commitment to address the courts backlog.^[45] The party said it would increase the number of prosecutors available by expanding the role of associate prosecutors and allowing them to work on “appropriate cases”. The manifesto did not specify what types of cases this would cover. An associate prosecutor is a non-legal Crown Prosecution Service employee designated by the director of public prosecutions to have statutory powers and rights of audience of a crown prosecutor set out in section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.^[46] The government has said this measure would be brought forward as part of its Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill. On 28 January 2025, the government said the bill would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allowed.^[47]

6. Reaction to government announcements

6.1 House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report

According to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the government is failing to take urgent action required to reduce the crown court backlog.^[48] In its latest report on the crown court backlog, published in March 2025, the PAC said it was concerned that the MoJ had “simply accepted” that the backlog would continue to grow whilst it awaited the outcome of the Leveson review.^[49] Whilst the PAC acknowledged the MoJ had taken measures to mitigate risks posed by the backlog, it argued the government was “tinkering around the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts, without planning for long-term solutions”.^[50]

The PAC’s report referred to measures the MoJ had previously introduced under the Conservative government to address the backlog, including those within the 2021 criminal justice action plan.^[51] Those measures focused on three key areas: improving timeliness, improving victim engagement and reducing backlogs. In the October 2021 spending review, the MoJ set an ambition to reduce the backlog from 60,000 (as it was then) to 53,000 by March 2025.^[52] In the 2021 spending review settlement, the MoJ received an additional £477mn to support the criminal justice system’s recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, including helping to reduce court backlogs. It also received an additional £644mn a year by 2024/25 to expand capacity across the criminal justice system, including meeting increased demand from the recruitment of 20,000 extra police officers.

During the PAC’s inquiry, the MoJ agreed that justice delayed was justice denied.^[53] However, it told the committee that the government expected the rate of new cases to continue to grow, with case completion rates not keeping pace.^[54] Additionally, the MoJ said it was unable to confirm when the backlog might come back down to 53,000. HMCTS has also acknowledged that operating the court system at maximum capacity would not be enough to stop the increasing caseload.^[55]

The PAC argued the MoJ had failed to adequately forecast increases in the number and type of cases being sent to the crown court.^[56] It accused the MoJ of being ill-prepared for “the predictable increase in demand for crown court time”.^[57] It said:

Despite [the] MoJ knowing in advance that [the] government was planning on greatly increasing the number of police, and receiving funding specifically to meet the consequent rise in new criminal cases, it failed to adequately forecast the scale of the increase nor prepare the crown court for the increase in workload.^[58]

The PAC expressed deep concern about the impacts of the backlog on victims and their families.^[59] Specifically, it highlighted the impact on victims of rape and serious sexual offence cases in particular who it said most frequently endured long waits for trials to begin and postponements to court hearings. It also noted disruption caused to the lives of defendants and their families, as well as the increase in the remand population which added to prison overcrowding.^[60]

The PAC argued that waiting for the Leveson review would delay reforms for many months.^[61] It urged the government to set out a plan of actions it could start implementing immediately to address the backlog. The PAC gave various recommendations, including for the MoJ to improve its approach to forecasting and understanding of future crown court cases.^[62]

6.2 External stakeholders

The Magistrates’ Association, a membership body for magistrates in England and Wales, has called for structural reforms to the court system to increase court capacity.^[63] It said it supported proposals in the Leveson review to establish an intermediate court. It said this was because magistrates’ involvement would maintain public confidence and ensure a lay perspective in absence of a jury.^[64] Additionally, the association said it would support an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers.^[65] However, it has called for additional investment in the court system because structural “reform alone cannot replace adequate resourcing”.

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones also said he would support the establishment of an intermediate court.^[66] The chief inspector said this should ensure “speedier justice” for those accused of more serious offences. Additionally, he stated that, whilst a new tier of court would create some additional costs, it would not necessarily require new court buildings because “the current court estate [was] already underutilised”. Mr Jones also said a new tier could encourage stronger collaboration between sentencers and probation services “to ensure that there is a full and timely analysis of the underlying reasons for offending and consideration of the sentence most likely to break that cycle”.

Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove described the Leveson review as a “constructive step forward”.^[67] Noting the significant impact on victims the courts backlog has had, the commissioner said a “strong, viable and sustainable victim support sector” was essential to ensuring victims were supported in the justice system.

Durham Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Joy Allen has also welcomed the Leveson review and the government’s commitment to address issues preventing swift justice for victims.^[68] The PCC said she hoped the review would also consider the re-introduction of an inspectorate to oversee the courts and tribunals service “to allow a truly cross-agency criminal justice inspection capability to improve its collective services to victims of crime”.

Some stakeholders have disagreed with the review’s proposal to introduce an intermediate tier court. For example, the Law Society has argued that an intermediate court was “not a viable solution to the backlogs”.^[69] It stated this would require significant time and resources which it said would be better invested in the existing court structure.

The Bar Council has also said it would not support the introduction of an intermediate court, arguing that removing the right to trial by jury was “not the answer”.^[70] It said removing juries could have “some serious potential risks to public confidence in the administration of justice”. Instead, it has called for a new model to be introduced for diverting cases of “some first-time, low-level” offenders away from the court system to reduce trial receipts. It has also said that “immediate, targeted and sustained investment” in the court system was needed if the backlog was to have any chance of being cleared.^[71]

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has also called for more immediate measures to be introduced to reduce the backlog. It has called for the removal of the cap on crown court sitting days and for the government to “re-open mothballed courts and use other parts of court buildings to increase capacity”.^[72] The CBA said the most urgent task should be to find methods to reduce the backlog as quickly as possible.

7. Read more

• House of Lords Library, ‘Constitution Committee report: Covid-19 and the courts’, 11 March 2022
• House of Commons Library, ‘Court statistics for England and Wales’, 13 September 2024, pp 14–17
• Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, ‘Issues affecting courts and the justice system’, 4 December 2024
• House of Commons Justice Committee, ‘Court capacity’, 27 April 2022, HC 69 of session 2021–22
• House of Commons Justice Committee, ‘Court capacity: Government response to the committee’s sixth report of session 2021–22’, 7 July 2022, HC 548 of session 2022–23
• House of Commons Justice Committee, ‘Oral evidence: Work of the lady chief justice’, 26 November 2024, HC 421 of session 2023–24
• House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, ‘Reducing the backlog in the criminal courts’, 9 March 2022, HC 643 of session 2021–22
• Ministry of Justice, ‘Treasury minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts forty-third report from session 2021–22’, 27 May 2022
• Ministry of Justice, ‘Letter to Dame Meg Hillier MP ref response to the PAC committee: Reducing the backlog in the criminal courts’, 7 September 2022

---

Michael D Beckwith, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons