Courts in chaos: The reality behind the government’s 1,250-day pledge 

BTC student Leah Rahman questions whether the government’s pledge can repair a justice system hit by closures, staff shortages and crumbling infrastructure

We are witnessing the Criminal Justice System’s disintegration in real time. The Crown Court maintained a record-high number of outstanding cases, with 73,105 as of September 2024. Each day, the number of cases increases. Many individuals, legal professionals and members of the bar have expressed outrage, prompting an attempt from the government to address the situation. On October 1, 2025, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would fund an additional 1,250 sitting days in order to expedite the justice process for victims. However, the question remains: Is this truly beneficial approach when courtrooms remain closed, malfunctioning, and plagued by staff shortages?

What is a sitting day

In brief, a sitting day is the duration of time that a court can allocate to the resolution of cases on specific days and at specific times. Crown Courts were scheduled to operate for 107,000 days in 2023–24 and 110,000 days this fiscal year prior to the announcement. According to the Criminal Bar Association, despite the implementation of these innovations, we are still 19,000 days short of our capacity. Although the additional days are likely appreciated, they do not resolve the issue. They are funded on paper, but they may not be realistic in practice.

The hidden downsides of additional sitting days

Between 2010-2019 we have witnessed the closure of over half of Magistrates and Crown courts in England and numerous remaining ones are in a state of disrepair, with collapsing roofs, malfunctioning heating systems, and inadequate IT infrastructure. In certain locations, courtrooms remain vacant despite the existence of a backlog due to the absence of clerks, judges, or functioning facilities. Judges are scheduling trials three to four years in the future, not due to a lack of sitting days, but rather due to a malfunctioning infrastructure. The issue is evident: sitting days mean little when the susten itself has nowhere left to sit. Furthermore, this is not a solely an issue of statistics. Every case that is postponed has a victim and a defendant who are eagerly anticipating their day in court. Witnesses can experience losses of faith, memories can diminish, and certain victims opt to abandon their case rather than endure years of uncertainty. The repercussions are particularly severe for defendants who are being held on remand. A significant number of individuals spend more time in prison awaiting their trial than they would if they were convicted. This causes individuals to perceive the system as unjust and to lose confidence in its capacity to deliver equitable, timely outcomes.

The government’s assertion of so called ‘faster justice’ is rendered meaningless when court structures are inadequately constructed and the professionals who staff them are departing in unprecedented numbers. The justice system is dependent on court clerks, ushers, and other administrative staff; however, a significant number of them have resigned due to years of budget cuts, low pay, and exhaustion. Even if judges and barristers are prepared to work, cases cannot advance without critical operational support from the government.

Additionally, it must be determined whether this sum of money is sufficient to address the magnitude of the issue. The cost of maintaining and repairing the court estate has significantly increased. The HM Courts & Tribunals Service has issued numerous notifications regarding the procrastination of critical repairs for an extended period of time. We are constantly plagued with images of the dilapidated corridors of the Crown Courts, filled with buckets collecting rainwater from leaking rooves.In certain instances, entire floors have been closed for safety reasons, requiring the remaining staff and judges to occupy cramped quarters. This frequently results in trials being double-booked, which subsequently disintegrate due to logistical issues.

The government’s willingness to fund large-scale private ventures contrasts starkly with its failure to adequately invest in the courts, which are essential to the functioning of the state. When the justice system is broken, we are instructed to ‘do more with less’. However, justice cannot be merely ‘bailed out’ in the same way that a business can be after it goes under. Once victims lose faith, witnesses disappear, and professionals depart the Bar, the damage is nearly impossible to repair.
The courts are a public service that promote the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. Criminals cannot be prosecuted, and victims cannot be heard if courts are inoperable. The backlog is not solely an issue for the administration; it is a transparent indication of neglect that has persisted for over decades.

In order to re-establish confidence in the criminal justice system, the government must undertake more than a mere examination of the statistics. This entails sufficient funding to facilitate the reopening of courts that have been closed, the recruitment of additional judges and personnel, the enhancement of the digital infrastructure of the courts, and the provision of legal aid to ensure that advocates are able to handle the cases that occupy these sitting days. If not, these 1,250 additional days are merely a political soundbite, a paper victory that obscures a more significant structural issue. Regardless of the number of days allocated in the budget, justice that is postponed is still denied.

Leah Rahman is currently studying the Bar Training Course student at BPP University Law School. She is an aspiring barrister with a particular interest in criminal law and the challenges facing the modern court system.