Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Burnett of Maldon Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her instructive maiden speech.

The outstanding case load in the Crown Court has reached a level that is irretrievable without a radical change to the way in which many Crown Court trials are conducted. I will repeat just a few figures. In January 2019, the outstanding case load was 33,000; it rose to 40,000 as Covid lockdown engulfed us in 2020, and by the end of September 2024, it was over 73,000. The December figure will soon be published by the Ministry of Justice, and there is no doubt that it will be significantly higher. The backlog continues to grow because the volume of cases coming into the system has greatly increased, and there is no sign of that volume diminishing. The proportion of cases taking more than a year to conclude in the Crown Court has roughly doubled over the same period.

All those involved in the system are working hard to iron out problems that result in too many hearings, ineffective trials or late guilty pleas—and much else that has been referred to. I am afraid that those changes and improvements will not solve the problem, but they would help. Similarly, extra sitting days would not solve the problem but would help.

There is an obvious solution, and in this I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who must be congratulated on securing this debate. A substantial proportion of cases that can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court, but which currently go to the Crown Court, should be decided in that court by the same composition that deals with appeals from the magistrates’ court—a judge and two magistrates. Obvious cases for such trials would be all offences that carry a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. It is the accident of the maximum sentence that enables a defendant to elect for jury trial.

Many other cases—including drugs offences, criminal damage, regulatory offences and others where, on conviction, the sentence would inevitably be non-custodial or a short term of imprisonment—might also be considered for such trials. Such trials would take hours rather than a couple of days, because that is how long they take in the magistrates’ court. Perhaps more importantly, many of the tactical not guilty pleas that are entered in the Crown Court at the moment would evaporate.

The limit on these speeches today, which I notice I have reached, makes it impossible to develop the arguments or deal with the reasoned arguments in opposition. But, having pondered this question for some time, I note that this solution, first mooted 25 years ago by Sir Robin Auld, stands a good chance of reversing what is otherwise an inexorable decline.

Courts: Backlogs

Lord Burnett of Maldon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend: public confidence is absolutely paramount. That is one reason why jury trials were persisted with—quite rightly—during the Covid period. Having said that, there are certain types of cases where it is maybe not appropriate that a jury trial should be available. I anticipate that Sir Brian is looking at those sorts of cases.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, the current outstanding backlog in the Crown Court is a little over 73,000; it was only 40,000 when Covid struck. The Minister has already indicated that the volume of cases coming into the Crown Court continues to increase. Has any solution occurred to him or his colleagues other than to restrict the right to jury trial for the relatively low-grade cases of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, spoke of, which clutter up the Crown Court?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord makes a very fair point. It is regrettable that the numbers are so high and are increasing—that is the underlying problem with which we are grappling within the Ministry of Justice. It is interesting that in the family court system we are back down to the pre-Covid numbers; that is good, and we are trying to bear down on that further. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord makes a very good point and I am sure that Sir Brian Leveson will address these points.

Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law

Lord Burnett of Maldon Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I will undertake to look at that. I am not aware of it in detail; I know that various pilots have been undertaken. I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have referred to the cost that falls on the courts as a result of the removal of legal aid for parents in dispute over their children. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I wonder whether the Government could take account also of the wider costs of the removal of legal aid in family cases which flow because parents at war are not as economically effective as they would otherwise be. People at war become ill, and there is untold damage done to the children as they are caught up in protracted disputes that need not happen. When the Minister is undertaking the review he referred to, would he take those matters into account?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Lord has hit the nail on the head. Private family law hearings are a destructive process. It is not unusual for situations to get worse for the people engaging in them, in my experience. Having the legal representation helps the court, and it is something I hope we can work towards over time. However, there are other initiatives, such as the pathfinder project, such as early legal advice, such as mediation vouchers, which we would like to use to divert couples away from the court system where it is appropriate and there is not risk to the children.

Prison Capacities

Lord Burnett of Maldon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, I add two points to those already made. First, there is much talk of prison capacity, but it is important to appreciate the difference between capacity in the sense of how many can be crammed in and the real capacity of our prisons. The Ministry of Justice has its own “baseline certified normal accommodation”, designed to provide decent accommodation. At the end of August, its figures suggested that it was about 8,500 over that baseline—perhaps fewer today. The adverse consequences are well understood. Its baseline, in its own words,

“represents the good, decent standard of accommodation”.

When does the ministry expect to achieve that level of decency and return to its baseline?

Secondly, overcrowded prisons risk the courts seizing up. During my final months in office as Lord Chief Justice, I received daily prison figures, broken down region by region. There was a risk that people being remanded into custody or sentenced would have nowhere to go—and, if they cannot be taken away, the work of the court is paralysed.

We have seen two interventions by the senior judiciary to delay cases that were likely to result in custody to avoid that eventuality. There are also prisoners being located far from courts in which they are appearing, resulting in transportation problems and delays in their hearings. I observed to colleagues on more than one occasion that we were only one riot away from meltdown—and so, alas, it has transpired.

Severe overcrowding in our prisons has a multiplicity of adverse consequences beyond the most obvious. There is little realistic prospect of substantially expanding prison capacity in the near term. That is, in any event, the wrong solution. The record number of those in custody must come down.