Crown court backlog of cases passes 75,000 for first time
Data published on Thursday shows the open caseload stood at 76,957 at the end of March this year, up from 74,592 at the end of December 2024.
This is also up 11% from 69,021 a year earlier, according to Ministry of Justice figures.
Some 18,093 cases had been open for at least a year at the end of March, up from 16,184 a year earlier and the highest since current data began.
Open caseload refers to the number of outstanding cases.
Responding to the figures, courts and legal services minister Sarah Sackman KC said the current rate of increase could see the backlog hit 100,000 before 2028.
This is earlier than the minister's previous warning that it could hit the milestone by the end of 2029.
Ms Sackman said: 'Despite the hard work of people across the criminal justice system the situation in our crown court is reaching breaking point.
'We inherited a courts crisis with an ever-growing backlog which, at its current rate of increase, will hit 100,000 before 2028.
'It is simply unacceptable that any victim has to wait years to see justice done and it is clear the status quo is not working.
'Only radical reform can deliver swifter justice for victims and that is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to make recommendations for once-in-a-generation change, to be published in the coming weeks.'
The Leveson review is expected to give recommendations on how to overhaul the court system.
The Government has already agreed to implement a raft of reforms following an independent sentencing review by former justice secretary David Gauke to tackle jail overcrowding.
But Mary Prior KC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said ministers must open up closed crown court rooms to allow delayed cases to be heard, adding: 'Whatever the radical reforms suggested in ongoing reviews, implementation will take at least another year.'
She said: 'The traumatised people in the long queue for justice may well have walked away by then, unheard and unseen.
'Victims of serious crimes want their cases dealt with in months, not years.
'People falsely accused of crimes want the same. Both want the nightmare to end.'
In March, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced a record level of sitting days for crown court judges to tackle delays but admitted the 'sad reality' is the backlog of cases will 'still go up'.
The Lord Chancellor said judges will sit collectively for 110,000 days in the next financial year – 4,000 more than allocated for the previous period.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
So, where will we put asylum seekers now courts have backed the ‘not in my backyarders'?
What is the message that comes from the High Court's decision to back Epping Council's petition to close the Bell Hotel, which has been used to accommodate people seeking asylum? It is not, as has been propagandised, that the Establishment judges – who it turns out are not 'enemies of the people' after all – listened with sympathy to the cries of the mums and nans demonstrating outside the hotel and begging for protection for their kids (after one of the people in the hotel was arrested and then charged with a sexual assault). The High Court didn't take a view on that. They granted an interim injunction requested by the local council to end the hotel's current usage with 14 days' notice on… planning grounds. Nothing much to do with human rights, community safety, crime levels, public concerns, Reform UK, or various politicians, propagandists, troublemakers, and digital activists (human or not) jumping on the cause. It was a breach of planning rules about purpose, the same as if someone had turned a shop into a restaurant. In a way, that makes the judgment a much more powerful affair than if it had been imposed by an official using some ambiguous, legally questionable authority. If it's wrong for a hotel in Essex to be used in this way, then it's wrong for a hotel anywhere in the country to be put to such a use. There are 'acute' difficulties with this, as the Home Office warned. Where to put them? The unintended consequence of the ruling is that the High Court has inadvertently created, to borrow a politically fashionable expression, a 'two-tier' system. Councils that proactively pursue legal action can have so-called migrant hotels in their area closed down. Less activist and arguably more humane councils in other places may not choose to take up the opportunity. Maybe individuals or groups can, in any case. But that means that the migrants can be effectively 'deported' from one county to another by the Home Office. Or, alternatively, they end up in flats or houses of multiple occupation (HMO) in the original local authority, or elsewhere, and not in breach of the planning process. At any rate, where to house asylum seekers will soon become an even more chaotic and highly charged issue than it is now, especially if demonstrations start up in streets where there's an HMO, and the police will find it difficult to be in too many places at once. There will, in other words, be more trouble, and it will prove more difficult to contain it. That's not the High Court's problem, but it's everyone else's. There is, it's claimed, a simple answer to this: 'Deport!' If it were as simple as that, it would have been done long ago by politicians under intense political pressure. Quite apart from the inviolable right under international law to claim asylum – let's just say that's been abolished – these people still need to be processed, if only to determine where to send them. Some countries are dangerous; fine, say the advocates for immediate expulsion. But those countries, and safer ones, may not wish to take people back. We can't force another country to accept them, still less stop them trying to get back to Britain. Take them to international waters? A long way from the English Channel, and it wouldn't necessarily prevent them from making a return journey. Shall we 'tow them back to France, a safe country,' as is often the reply? Well, no, because that would be a violation of French sovereignty. Apart from the very small new returns arrangements, there is no lawful method of doing this. How, it might be asked, would we feel if the French navy brought them back to the south coast of England? Insane. It would risk confrontation with the French navy and a serious breach in relations with Paris and, thus, the EU. That would be bad for national security and for trade. Even Nigel Farage, history buff and atavistic patriot, might not wish for a return to a comic opera version of the Napoleonic Wars. Put them in tents? OK – but where? Place them in detention camps? Fine – but where? 'Not in my back yard' is the usual answer, which doesn't sound like a workable solution at scale. The challenge of irregular migration is very obviously an intractable one, to which there are no easy answers, and which has been made quite a bit more difficult by the High Court judges. Even so, they are doing their job, and an independent judiciary free of political pressure and media bullying is an essential part of our way of life. It should not matter to any court that Yvette Cooper is troubled by it, nor, for that matter, that some overheated pundit on Talk TV has got the champagne out. We should respect court decisions that are awkward or offensive. We should also spare a thought for the future of other human beings genuinely fleeing torture or execution, as some undoubtedly are, with no desire to break the law or attack anyone. It's unfashionable to say such things right now, but even if they are 'just' economic migrants, their lives matter too.
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
Man claims 3 inch penis is so small he could not have ‘raped woman in alleyway after party'
A MAN has claimed his three inch penis is so small he could not have raped a woman in an alleyway at a party, a court heard. Hossein Mohmoudi, 34, is accused of dragging the woman to the ground in Stratford, East London in the early hours of the morning. 1 He then allegedly pulled up her skirt and raped her before he was interrupted by a passing cyclist. But defence counsel David Harounoff questioned whether the woman could have felt Mohmoudi's penis. He told jurors at Snaresbrook Crown Court that Mohmoudi has a small penis and cannot "get it up". Giving evidence, the complainant grabbed a 30cm ruler from beside the witness stand and asked Mr Harounoff if he wanted an exact measurement. He responded: "I'm going to suggest to you what you said is untrue. He has erectile dysfunction. He can't get it up. "It's the defence case that he has erectile dysfunction and his penis is three inches long. "The defence case is it would be physically impossible to have attempted or actually raped you." But the complainant responded: "That's not true." The court heard the woman was returning home from a Christmas party in December last year when the alleged horror unfolded. She had jumped out of a taxi to be sick before boarding a bus to Stratford. Just before 1am, the woman claims she was "dragged" to the floor and raped by a 6ft, "Middle-Eastern-looking" man with "yellowy, pale skin" and a "messy beard". She told jurors: "I just remember thinking he was foul. Really disgusting. Not clean. The smell. He was a smelly man. I think it's still on me. A smoker. Not somebody who looks after themselves.' The woman claims she could not have consented to sex because she did not see her alleged attacker "until it was happening". She also told the court she recalls "freezing" in horror during the 20 to 30 second attack. Mohmoudi has claimed he thought he recognised the woman so approached her to help. He said he then ran off when she "became hysterical" and started shouting at him. CCTV played to jurors showed the woman entering the alleyway before Mohmoudi follows her in. Hidden behind a large gate or fence, she shouts: "Wait, wait, wait. F**k you. F**k off. F**k you. F**k off". A cyclist then passes in the background before Mohmoudi runs away from the scene. Mohmoudi denies rape and the trial continues.
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Complaints over plant-based menu at Calderdale Council events
Complaints have been made about plant-based menus being served at a council's official events, with reports that a "large amount" of food was going to Council last year approved plans to have only vegan food, with no dairy or meat options, served at its meetings and catered comments were made at a recent Civic Advisory Panel that suggested the policy was not suited to everyone's council's deputy leader, Scott Patient, had urged people to "try it, you might like it", adding that the authority should lead by example and encourage other organisations to use locally sourced fruit and vegetables. He put forward the original proposal for the plans and previously told the BBC the impact of the policy on the council's carbon footprint would be "hard to measure".It was "more of a statement of intention and a show of leadership", he councillor Geraldine Carter told members of the scrutiny meeting that she had received complaints about the plant-based menus at various events that had been catered by the to minutes from the meeting, she said it was logistically a problem for Mayor of Calderdale Steven Leigh to host visitors on purely plant-based food, and that it had been noted that there was a "large amount of food waste following plant-based catered events". She went on to say that it "did not align with council values of inclusivity" as a very small percentage of the national population chose a plant-based diet, according to the asked for the mayor to be allowed to serve non-vegan food if it was being funded from the mayoral members commented that the policy was approved by a majority vote in the council chamber, and it was not within the remit of the Civic Advisory Group to amend it, according to the Local Democracy Reporting they added it could recommend that adjustments be made to the catering with a view to reducing waste. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
