Recommendations & Conclusions
6 items
4
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
The remand population is at its highest number for 50 years, and the length of time some defendants on remand wait for their cases to be heard is disrupting their lives and their families’ lives, and adding to prison overcrowding. The remand population has increased sharply in recent years, reaching …
Read more
The remand population is at its highest number for 50 years, and the length of time some defendants on remand wait for their cases to be heard is disrupting their lives and their families’ lives, and adding to prison overcrowding. The remand population has increased sharply in recent years, reaching 17,600 in September 2024 (20% of the prison population), the highest level in 50 years, up from 9,602 in 2019 (11% of the prison population). It is unacceptable that some people are held on remand for this length of time, particularly as some will be found not guilty. More cases in the backlog awaiting trial swells the remand population, adding to prison capacity pressures and making it even harder for HM Prison and Probation Service to manage the prison population. The NAO reported that in September 2022, 32% of the remand population had been held on remand beyond the custody time limit of 6 months, and 5% had been on remand for more than two years. We are concerned that MoJ cannot provide more up–to–date information on the number of people who have been on remand beyond their custody time limits. recommendation a. MoJ, led by the Lord Chancellor, should urgently discuss with the Lady Chief Justice how to reduce remand numbers to the 2019 level, which would free up 8,000 vitally needed prison places. b. MoJ and HMCTS should gather and publish more granular data on the remand population, to show how long people are spending on remand and how this population is changing, to better understand the impact long waits have on defendants and the outcomes of their cases, and to inform the development of services that better support those on remand and their families. 6 c. MoJ and HMCTS should urgently review how the number of people on remand for over two years can be reduced to the bare minimum.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees but deflects responsibility for reducing remand numbers to the independent judiciary and its existing actions. It will consider further steps only after receiving recommendations from the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) about reducing the backlog of cases in the Crown Court.1
Government response AI summary
The government agrees but deflects responsibility, stating it will consider implementation plans for reforms from the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts once its recommendations are received.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
When asked about its current ambition for the level of open Crown Court cases, MoJ said that the crucial factor in achieving a reduction in the backlog is the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the Leveson Review), which MoJ expects will provide a fundamental assessment of the reforms it …
Read more
When asked about its current ambition for the level of open Crown Court cases, MoJ said that the crucial factor in achieving a reduction in the backlog is the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the Leveson Review), which MoJ expects will provide a fundamental assessment of the reforms it can make in the longer term.19 The Lord Chancellor commissioned this review in December 2024, asking Sir Brian Leveson to consider: • long–term options for criminal court reform, with the aim of reducing demand on the Crown Court by retaining more cases in the lower courts (the inquiry’s terms of reference include six specific reform options for the review to consider); and • the efficiency and timeliness of processes through charge to conviction or acquittal.20
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the Committee's perspective, stating that work is already underway to prepare for a swift response and implementation of recommendations from the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts once received in July 2025, and that MoJ is actively considering implementation plans for …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
10
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
We heard of the many issues that MoJ and HMCTS know need addressing if they are to reduce the backlog, but which they are waiting for the Leveson review to report on: poor case preparation, defendants being absent or not 14 Qq 5, 81 15 Qq 38–39 16 Q 2; …
Read more
We heard of the many issues that MoJ and HMCTS know need addressing if they are to reduce the backlog, but which they are waiting for the Leveson review to report on: poor case preparation, defendants being absent or not 14 Qq 5, 81 15 Qq 38–39 16 Q 2; C&AG’s Report, para 3.2 17 C&AG’s Report, para 4 18 Qq 2, 6, 61 19 Qq 5, 25 20 Ministry of Justice, Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, published 12 December 2024 (accessed 17 January 2025) 12 arriving at court on time, the defence not being ready, advice and guidance to defendants on their pleas, capacity of solicitors and barristers, as well as reforming the fundamental structural issues within the courts system that mean new cases are outstripping the rate at which the courts can conclude cases.21
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's conclusion, outlining numerous ongoing actions to reduce the Crown Court backlog. However, it acknowledges these are insufficient for substantial reform and confirms its reliance on the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (Leveson Review) which is due in Spring …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
The Leveson Review is expected to report in two parts: firstly, in late Spring 2025 on options for long–term reform, and then not until Autumn 2025 on efficiency and timeliness.22 Until those reports, MoJ told us that it expects the rate of new cases to remain greater than the Crown …
Read more
The Leveson Review is expected to report in two parts: firstly, in late Spring 2025 on options for long–term reform, and then not until Autumn 2025 on efficiency and timeliness.22 Until those reports, MoJ told us that it expects the rate of new cases to remain greater than the Crown Court’s capacity to hear and conclude cases, and that simply more funding would not bring things back into line.23 We are concerned that MoJ and HMCTS are placing too much reliance on the Leveson Review, and that the backlog will continue to grow for more years while how to implement the review’s results are considered.24 The impact on victims
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's concern, outlining extensive ongoing work to reduce the Crown Court backlog. However, it acknowledges that these actions are insufficient for substantial reform and confirms its anticipation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts' recommendations in Spring 2025, with …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
12th Report - Crown Court backlogs
Deferred
MoJ told us that there is a direct correlation between the number of cases in the backlog and the size of the remand population awaiting trial, and that this is adding to prison capacity pressures and making it harder to manage the prison population.41 The written evidence submitted by His …
Read more
MoJ told us that there is a direct correlation between the number of cases in the backlog and the size of the remand population awaiting trial, and that this is adding to prison capacity pressures and making it harder to manage the prison population.41 The written evidence submitted by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons also notes that some people awaiting sentencing are spending so long on remand that upon sentencing they are released from court having already served the length of their sentence while on remand.42 38 C&AG’s Report, para 3.4 39 CCB0008 40 CCB0003 41 Q 47 42 CCB0008, para 13 15 2 Understanding and managing the backlog Planning and adapting to increasing rates of new cases
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees with the committee's conclusion, noting judges already prioritise remand cases and existing actions should help. However, it states the Lord Chancellor will continue discussions on prioritisation, the MoJ is exploring initiatives to address time spent on remand, and will consider further steps …
Read full response →
HM Treasury