Ministers promise more court sitting days, extra funding and changes to how cases are tried and sentenced. But the Government has stopped short of adopting Leveson’s full ambition for tackling the crisis.
The Government has pledged sweeping reforms to England and Wales’ criminal courts in response to Lord Brian Leveson’s independent review, promising to tackle a record Crown Court backlog through increased funding, structural changes and greater use of technology.
In its response, published yesterday (13th October), the Government acknowledges the scale of the crisis facing the criminal justice system, with almost 81,000 cases awaiting resolution in the Crown Court as of June. Nearly 24,000 of those cases had been waiting for more than a year, leaving victims, witnesses and defendants facing prolonged uncertainty.
The proposals represent a significant attempt to modernise a system struggling to cope with increasingly complex criminal cases, growing volumes of digital evidence and longstanding capacity pressures. However, the Government’s response also reveals differences between Lord Leveson’s recommendations and the measures ministers are prepared to implement.
Lord Leveson’s review was commissioned in December 2024 and published in two parts. The first, released in July 2025, examined structural reforms to ensure cases were dealt with proportionately and efficiently. The second, published in February 2026, focused on improving the operation of the criminal courts, including the use of technology, better case management and stronger coordination across the criminal justice system.
The Government says the review provides a blueprint for reform, but argues that no single measure will resolve the backlog. Instead, it intends to combine additional resources with changes to court procedures and the way criminal cases are handled.
Major investment, but pressure remains
Ministers have committed substantial funding to increase the capacity of the courts and strengthen the legal workforce.
Crown Court sitting days have been uncapped for 2026/27, allowing courts to operate at maximum capacity. The Government has also committed to increasing the number of magistrates to 21,000 by 2028/29, up from approximately 12,500 in 2021.
Additional measures include up to £34 million a year in increased funding for criminal legal aid advocates, alongside £116 million annually for criminal legal aid solicitors. A scheme launched in September will provide funding for up to 100 additional criminal barrister pupillages each year.
The Government is also investing £287 million in court buildings and digital systems, while committing £550 million over three years to victim support services.
Ministers argue that this investment is essential to addressing years of underinvestment and ensuring the courts can deal with more cases. However, the Government does not believe it can immediately meet Lord Leveson’s suggested target of 130,000 Crown Court sitting days annually. Its current plans envisage 117,000 sitting days in 2028/29.
The gap highlights the scale of the challenge: additional funding can create more opportunities for hearings, but the system also needs sufficient judges, lawyers, court staff and functioning buildings to translate capacity into completed cases.
Changes to the role of magistrates’ courts
One of the most significant reforms is contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which the Government says will reduce pressure on the Crown Court by ensuring cases are heard in the most appropriate venue.
Under the proposals, defendants would lose their right to elect for Crown Court trial for offences that can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. Decisions on where cases are heard would instead rest with the courts, taking account of the seriousness and complexity of the allegations.
Magistrates’ sentencing powers would also increase, allowing custodial sentences of up to 18 or 24 months for specified categories of either-way offences. The Government says this would enable more cases to be dealt with in magistrates’ courts, where such offences are completed more than four times faster than in the Crown Court.
The Bill would also introduce a permission stage for appeals from magistrates’ courts and replace automatic full rehearings with hearings focused on specific issues.
Ministers argue these changes would free up Crown Court resources for the most serious cases and reduce unnecessary delays for victims and witnesses.
However, removing defendants’ choice of Crown Court trial represents a substantial change to the allocation of criminal cases. Its implementation will be closely watched, particularly in relation to fairness, access to justice and the practical consequences of transferring more cases to magistrates’ courts.
A more digital and efficient justice system
Technology is another central pillar of the Government’s response.
Ministers intend to expand the use of artificial intelligence to help identify case-readiness problems, prioritise administrative tasks and improve the scheduling of hearings. They are also developing a single digital Justice ID to help track cases and outcomes across the criminal justice system, from arrest through the courts and custody to rehabilitation in the community.
The Government has stressed that AI tools must undergo rigorous testing for accuracy, reliability, security and bias before approval. The stated aim is to reduce manual workloads while ensuring professionals retain the ability to exercise their judgement.
Remote hearings will also be used more consistently where appropriate, with the Government arguing that virtual proceedings can reduce unnecessary travel and release court capacity.
Alongside technological reform, dedicated case progression staff are being introduced across every Crown Court centre to identify outstanding actions and resolve routine problems before they cause hearings to be postponed.
The measures address a persistent source of inefficiency: in 2025, one in four Crown Court trials was ineffective and could not proceed on the day.
Jury trials and judicial independence
The Government’s response also sets out important limits to the reforms proposed in the review.
Ministers have accepted the principle of judge-only trials for certain lengthy and technical fraud and financial cases, subject to restrictions. Cases will require a preparatory hearing, and exclusions will apply where jury trial is in the public interest or where specified homicide and sexual offences are involved.
However, the Government has decided to remove provisions for a proposed Crown Court Bench Division from the Courts and Tribunals Bill, following strong concerns expressed by parliamentarians, stakeholders and the legal sector about judge-only trials for less serious cases.
It believes the remaining reforms, combined with additional funding and improved efficiency, will be sufficient to reduce the Crown Court backlog by the end of the current Parliament.
The Government has also accepted Lord Leveson’s recommendation for a single vision for the criminal justice system, with clearer accountability and shared performance measures across the police, prosecutors, courts, prisons and probation services. Ministers say this must respect the operational independence of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary.
Implementation will be the real test
The Government’s response signals a willingness to make substantial changes to the criminal courts, while stopping short of accepting every recommendation.
Some proposals have been accepted outright, others only in principle, and some rejected. Further work on areas including out-of-court resolutions, rehabilitation and elements of legal aid reform remains subject to examination or future funding decisions.
Ultimately, the success of the programme will depend on whether these commitments translate into shorter waiting times, fewer ineffective hearings and a more sustainable legal workforce.
For victims and witnesses, the priority is a system that delivers timely justice without repeated postponements. For defendants, it is one that protects fair-trial rights while bringing cases to resolution. For the legal profession, the challenge will be adapting to new procedures while maintaining the standards on which public confidence depends.
The Government has accepted Lord Leveson’s central argument that investment alone cannot solve the crisis. Whether its combination of funding, structural reform and modernisation can deliver lasting change will now depend on implementation, scrutiny and measurable improvements in the operation of the courts.
Top photo: Shutterstock
Lower photo: Conny Schneider
Leave a Reply