Data shows Crown Court backlog is falling — but the Government won't admit it

Max Thompson

7 April 2026

At the end of last year, the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, sparked outrage by proposing to curtail one of the oldest and most precious rights in the English legal tradition: trial by jury.

Despite lacking a clear democratic mandate for such a sweeping reform, the Labour Government has pressed ahead with plans that will erode a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. As legal scholar Andi Hoxhaj recently put it in The Spectator, jury trials act as a "critical safety valve within the legal system".

Juries serve as a vital check on state power and as a check against bias. That role feels particularly important at a time when our liberties are increasingly under attack from this authoritarian government and the militant cancel-culture mob.

The Government has justified its proposals by pointing to what it describes as a “courts emergency”, driven by a growing backlog in the Crown Court. Mr Lammy has warned that, without urgent reform, the backlog could rise from around 80,000 cases to 135,000 by 2028.

There is no doubt that the courts are under strain. But the evidence increasingly suggests that jury trials are not the cause of the problem.

Over the weekend, analysis of official data by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) indicated that the backlog is already beginning to fall in key regions of England and Wales. The improvement follows the Government’s decision to lift the cap on Crown Court sitting days, allowing for an additional 1,250 sitting days.

This is a straightforward and effective intervention: more court time means more cases heard and resolved.

Yet, curiously, ministers have said little about it.

For a Government eager to highlight progress where it can, the silence is striking. The only possible explanation is that by acknowledging this success, it would undermine their case for restricting jury trials.

Under the proposed reforms, defendants facing charges with a maximum sentence of less than three years would lose the right to elect a jury trial. Instead, their cases would be heard by magistrates or in judge-only courts.

Opposition to the plans has been broad and, in some cases, unexpected. Critics from across the political spectrum – including senior lawyers and MPs from all political parties – have raised concerns about the long-term implications for justice and public confidence in the system. Most notably, this includes the now-suspended Labour MP and former Shadow Attorney General, Karl Turner, who has been leading a rebellion of up to 80 Labour backbenchers.

A report by the Institute for Government suggests that the proposed reforms would only reduce Crown Court workload by around 2 per cent – far short of the 20 per cent figure cited by ministers.

Meanwhile, a more obvious problem persists: underused court capacity.

A significant number of Crown Courtrooms remain empty on working days. Between November 2025 and January 2026, an average of 64.4 out of 516 courtrooms were not in use. At the time of writing, that number had risen to 123 – nearly a quarter of all available courtrooms.

The implication is clear. Delays are not being driven by the existence of jury trials, but by a lack of sitting days and the underutilisation of available court space.

The CBA’s analysis highlights what can be achieved when that constraint is addressed. At Maidstone Crown Court, for example, the backlog has fallen by 5 per cent over the past six months. Across England and Wales, new case receipts have also declined, suggesting that the downward trend may continue.

Researchers involved in the analysis noted that the fall in the final quarter of 2025 “suggests that the trajectory is for yet further reductions in the backlog this year, with more declines to come as the lid on sitting days is lifted”.

Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, expressed concern that this data was not more widely shared. Speaking to The Times, she said she did “not understand why this core data… was not shared with us, or the parliamentary select committee scrutinising the Courts and Tribunals Bill”.

She added that the debate over jury trials is “of generational importance” and questioned why evidence that might challenge the Government’s projections appears to have been withheld for months.

The researchers themselves were equally critical, suggesting that ministers have relied on assumptions rather than robust evidence in promoting the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

All of this raises an uncomfortable question: if practical measures are already easing the backlog, why pursue reforms that risk weakening a fundamental right? It is ideological zealotry.

Trial by jury, enshrined under clause 39 of Magna Carta 1215, has endured for centuries for a reason. It commands public confidence and provides an essential safeguard against arbitrary justice.

If the current data tells us anything, it is that the solution to court delays lies not in removing that vital safeguard, but in properly resourcing the system that supports it.

Further details have been reported in The Times.