London has been identified as having the fastest growing court backlog in England and Wales. Thousands of criminal and family cases are waiting to be heard, with delays stretching from months into years.

This article examines how the court system reached this point and whether recent reforms, including proposals to limit jury trials and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, are likely to ease pressure or make matters worse.

What does the current situation look like?

London’s criminal courts are facing unprecedented delays. The Criminal Bar Association reports that nearly 19,000 criminal cases are currently outstanding in the capital, following a 24% increase in the backlog, the fastest growth rate anywhere in England and Wales.

Nationally, the Crown Court backlog is expected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, according to the Ministry of Justice. At present:

  • 24,703 cases relate to violent offences
  • 14,180 cases involve sexual offences

Even non-custodial drug offences are being delayed by at least a year, despite defendants not requiring detention before trial.

Delays are not confined to criminal courts. Family courts are also under strain, with shortages of district judges and social workers contributing to backlogs, particularly in London and the South East.

How did we get here?

The roots of the backlog stretch back more than a decade.

Following the 2010 spending review, the Ministry of Justice faced deep cuts, including a 70% reduction in capital funding and the closure of 157 courts. This permanently reduced court capacity.

In 2018, ministers introduced a cap on the number of days judges could be paid to sit. While intended to control spending, the policy left some courtrooms idle, not because cases were unavailable, but because judges were.

Cuts to legal aid further compounded the problem. The National Audit Office found a £728 million reduction in legal aid spending between 2012–13 and 2022–23. As legal aid is the main funding source for criminal defence work, fewer barristers were able or willing to take on cases. By 2024–25, the number of barristers undertaking criminal work had fallen by 12%, prompting widespread strike action.

The result is fewer courts, fewer judges, and fewer lawyers, with demand unchanged.

What changes can we expect to see?

The government has announced new funding to address the crisis, including £450 million to increase court capacity and £34 million for criminal advocates.

However, several recent proposals have raised concerns. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is expected to encourage more tenants to challenge rent increases at the First-tier Tribunal. Critics warn this could overwhelm an already stretched tribunal system, leading to delays similar to those in the courts.

Proposals to scrap jury trials in some cases are also unlikely to deliver significant gains. The Institute for Government estimates this would save less than 2% of court time and would require recruiting thousands of new magistrates to manage additional hearings.

In effect, workload risks are being shifted rather than reduced.

Public Response

Victims and defendants are bearing the brunt of delays. Some victims have waited years for cases to conclude, with charities such as the Women’s Trust warning that long delays discourage victims from continuing with prosecutions.

Defendants are also affected. In December 2024, over 17,000 people were held in custody awaiting trial or sentencing. The Chief Inspector of Probation described delays as unfair to defendants “waiting an excessive time… to establish their guilt or innocence”.

Legal professionals have widely attributed the crisis to long-term underfunding. The president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association said shortages now affect “every part of the system”. At the same time, former Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell has criticised both major parties, arguing that “justice delayed is justice denied”.

Future Outlook

Court backlogs show little sign of easing in the short term. While increased funding may help, structural problems, including staffing shortages and rising demand, remain unresolved.

As new reforms take effect, it remains unclear whether they will meaningfully reduce delays or relocate pressure elsewhere in the justice system. Without sustained investment and long-term planning, access to timely justice will remain under threat.