In terms of other solutions, I'd focus on doing everything they can to drive up productivity, esp driving up hours per day spent actually hearing cases, which has fallen substantially. And listing cases likely to plead guilty on the day early, to clear them out the backlog
I'm not opposed to all measures to reduce jury trials - there are some other ways to do it I discuss in my paper here, e.g. reclassifying some offences as summary only. On appeals, success rate has been climbing as number falls, which suggests there aren't many frivolous ones
This really matters because the biggest problem in criminal courts right now is poor productivity - not because people aren't working hard, but because there aren't enough staff, the buildings keep flooding, the IT doesn't work etc. Piling major reforms on top of this could seriously backfire.
Major change programmes take up time and attention for staff and leadership, often making performance worse. These reforms are also extremely unpopular with criminal lawyers, risking further problems recruiting and retaining enough lawyers.
The gov's argument is that things are so bad, they have to try everything - "nothing short of throwing the kitchen sink", a la courts minister Sarah Sackman. This sounds sensible. But in practice, there's a problem: it's really hard to do structural reform and increase productivity at the same time.
I wrote a piece for LBC on how proposed reforms to criminal trials actually risk making things worse, rather than better www.lbc.co.uk/article/crim...
Nice reference to my new report in the Guardian liveblog! You can read the whole thing here
www.theguardian.com/politics/liv...
NEW REPORT: The government’s proposed reforms to criminal trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and justice, and could lead to further declines in performance and productivity.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
A screenshot from the Institute for Government, which reads, 'A balance must be struck between swift and fair justice The scale of the problem in the criminal courts is immense, and the government is right to consider a wide range of potential solutions. For victims, defendants, and their families, the delays in the courts can be devastating. But the need for swifter justice must be balanced with the need for fair justice. An 18-month or two-year prison sentence is life-changing, and it is crucial that the court system is set up and resourced both to deliver the right outcomes for individual cases, and to maintain public confidence in the system.'
Courts are in real crisis & gov is right to consider all options. But the need for swifter justice must be balanced with the need for fair justice. An 18-month or 2-year prison sentence is life-changing & courts must both deliver the right outcomes in individual cases & maintain public confidence.
A screenshot from the Institute for Government which reads, 'Currently, any adult facing more than six months in prison has a right to a jury trial if they want to exercise it, though most do not do so. Almost all of them will lose that, and instead face the faster and potentially ‘rougher justice’ of magistrates’ courts12 – where the verdict is decided on by one, two or three people, rather than 12, after a much shorter trial in which most defendants’ have more limited access to legal advice. It is hard to argue that this offers an equally robust form of justice as a jury trial in the crown court. The stakes will also be higher – given magistrates’ increased sentencing powers and defendants’ much restricted right to appeal.'
This is esp concerning given simultaneous big increase in mags’ sentencing powers & restrictions on right to appeal. Automatic right of appeal is being abolished & defendants will need permission to appeal. MoJ estimates only ~20% of applicants will get it, though ~40% of appeals are successful now!
A line chart from the Institute for Government of outstanding cases in magistrates' courts, Q1 2019 to Q3 2025, where the number of outstanding cases rises sharply in Q2 of 2020 from just over 200,000 to around 350,000, slowly falls back to around 250,000 in 2023 and since then has been climbing rapidly and is approaching 400,000.
But this is also where biggest risks are. Magistrates’ courts can’t cope with 10–15% increase in demand when backlog is already ballooning. And justice in mags’ courts is frankly less robust: decision is made by 1–3 people, rather than 12, after a short trial w/ more limited access to legal advice.
A table from the Institute for Government showing estimated change in court demand as a result of court reform proposals, according to the IfG's initial estimate and the MoJ central projection
Gov estimates reforms will save ~13% of court time (-19% saving in crown court, +6% in magistrates' courts). Approach is sound but (inevitably) relies on a lot of assumptions and is v uncertain. Just 2-3.5% will be saved by judge-only trials: real time-saver is hearing cases in magistrates’ courts.
Severe court delays make a strong case for doing everything possible to cut the case backlog. But potential savings remain v uncertain and reforms could well backfire: big changes inevitably cause lots of disruption, and deep unpopularity with lawyers risks worsening existing workforce shortages.
Today MPs debate gov's reforms to criminal trials, which aim to cut demand on the crown court by:
1) removing option of jury trial for 000s of defendants
2) increasing magistrates' sentencing powers
3) some crown court trials heard by a judge w/ no jury
4) restricting appeals from mags’ courts
NEW REPORT: The government’s proposed reforms to criminal trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and justice, and could lead to further declines in performance and productivity.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
Reeves sits down having announced no real new policy measures at this Spring Forecast (but having made a very political speech)
So she did not make this a fiscal event – which is absolutely the right thing for her to do
As the analysis starts of the Gorton and Denton result, I wanted to flag some aspects that my experience yesterday suggests are being over or under-played
(Caveats - I went to Longsight, Gorton and Denton town centres and spoke to as many people as I could, but it was mostly during the working day)
We're developing recommendations for central government to support better coordination in the SEND system.
Have a read of the comment if you'd like a taste of some of the issues we'll be thinking about, and if you have any thoughts please get in touch!
Big unanswered question for me: will there be a right of appeal on matters of fact, rather than points of law, from magistrates' courts?
Keeping more cases in magistrates' courts seems v sensible, but real risks if you end up with 2-3 magistrates' handing out 2 year sentences & no appeal on facts.
Yes - diversity among magistrates is not great, but it's significantly better than diversity among judges!
Totally agree with this. There's a reason we talk about the problem with one person as 'judge, jury and executioner' - having multiple people involved in these decisions makes them more robust. Striking too that cutting jury trials is proposed hand-in-hand with dramatic *restrictions* on appeals
Great comment piece from IfG colleagues on what to expect from next week's Spring Forecast, and why approaching it as a fiscal NON-event is the right call from Reeves
Do follow @danhaile.bsky.social, @martha-ford.bsky.social and @jillongovt.bsky.social for more on this in the week ahead
Interested in joining our fantastic comms team? You have two weeks to get your application in for our 2026-27 comms internship. Send on to others who might be interested!
PODCAST 🎙️ All roads lead to Romeo
The IfG's experts are in the studio to discuss what new cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo can do to turn the civil service, and perhaps the government, around.
PLUS: Ethics in public life and local elections U-turn www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/podcast/insi...
Our point is more basic: the potential benefits from efficiency gains vastly outweigh those from structural reforms. Ministerial time & attention, funding, political capital & workforce goodwill all have their limits & should be focused where they will have greatest impact: driving up productivity.
Screenshot from an IfG report, which reads: Our recent Public Services Performance Tracker 2025 explored some of the reasons behind the widening productivity gap that has opened up in the crown court in recent years. These include a shortage of criminal lawyers, poor court administration and a long-running lack of investment in court buildings and physical and technological infrastructure. These are not quick or easy problems to fix, but even so there are opportunities for meaningful improvements before 2029. These could be done alongside more moderate proposals to handle some more cases in magistrates’ courts, which would be less likely to provoke backlash.
Screenshot from an IfG report, which reads: Initial steps like matched funding for criminal pupillages14 (barrister trainee positions) and increasing criminal legal aid fees15 are welcome and should help to restore criminal lawyer numbers. Similarly, increased maintenance funding16 should reduce time lost to broken fire alarms and flooded court rooms. But more can be done. The government should focus on understanding what is driving differences in court productivity around the country, with crown courts in Liverpool and much of Wales consistently cited as high performers.17 Are there particular approaches to how cases are listed for trial or judicial behaviour that could be applied elsewhere? What explains the wide variation in the proportion of trials rescheduled at the last minute?
On 2), we don’t assume you could quickly get court productivity back to 2016 levels! We highlight workforce problems as a source of poor productivity & note they’re not quick or easy to fix. We even say some nice things about efforts gov is making in this area (& suggest what else they could do):
If anything, then, our figures are more likely to overstate the impact of reforms than understate them. Critically, most of the impact comes from keeping cases in magistrates’ courts, *not* from judge-only trials. And the government's ability to do this is highly uncertain.
Similarly for judge-only trials: even if each trial was 30% faster on average than a jury trial (more than gov's estimate of 20%) that would only save 2.5% of total court time. That saving could easily be wiped out if, for example, it lead to more criminal lawyers leaving the profession.
Gov is mostly relying on upping magistrates’ sentencing powers from 12 to 18 months, to keep cases out of the crown court. But magistrates are already meant to hear trials for these cases and only send to the crown court for sentencing (which is quick). So in practice, savings could easily be <5%.
For example, we estimate the whole package would reduce demand by 7-10%. That’s based on cutting the number of jury trials by 40-45%, in line w/ MoJ saying ‘roughly half’. I don’t think the measures they’ve announced so far are enough to cut jury trials that much – but gave the benefit of the doubt!
