INEFFECTIVE TRIALS 2013-2026: WHY HAS SO LITTLE CHANGED? PART 2

The phenomenon of trials failing to proceed in 2013 was not new.  The politicians in the House of Commons might have wished it away but deep in the bowels of Petty France mathematicians, statisticians, market research analysts, data scientists, data analysts, operations research analysts and others of similar expertise were like busy bees looking for explanations as to why the known problem of maladministration causing overlisting, defendants being absent and witnesses being unavailable was apparently intractable. Then along came Covid. 

It would be wrong to pretend that the pandemic did not fundamentally disrupt the criminal courts. Courts closed or operated with reduced capacity. Hearings were postponed. Jury trials were suspended or severely restricted. Cases accumulated but Covid was the exception, not the rule. Pre Covid the ineffective trial rate in magistrates courts was fairly settled at around 15%-16%. In 2026 Q1 the rate was 21% and had been steady for six years. In the same quarter overlisting was the cause of 21% of ineffective trials. The courts did not simply suffer a temporary Covid spike and then return to normal. They reached a new plateau. At the end of March 2026 the magistrates courts had 370,722 open cases; a series peak. The non-Single Justice Procedure caseload alone stood at 184,565. More strikingly, the number of open trial cases had reached 83,020, up 15% in a year and substantially above the 50,689 recorded in Q1 2022. Trial receipts have exceeded trial disposals in every quarter since Q1 2022. That is not simply a statistical curiosity. If more cases enter the trial system than leave it the queue grows. And when the queue grows finding courtrooms, judges, magistrates, advocates, witnesses and defendants at the same time becomes progressively more difficult.

In Q2 and Q3 2013, 72% of the ineffective trials attributed to court administration were not heard because of overlisting.  Plus ca change........It could be argued that there is a chicken and egg situation with regard to ineffective trials:  the backlog causes ineffective trials but also ineffective trials contribute to the backlog.  When too many cases enter the system [overlisting] some trials do not proceed and add to the queue in a vicious circle.  

In Q1 this year 4,884 trials were vacated before the date set. 52% resulted from the prosecution discontinuing the case before trial and 19% were attributed to an anticipated lack of court time. A case discontinued before trial, a trial vacated because there is no court time, a cracked trial following a late guilty plea and an ineffective trial are all different events but from the perspective of all those anticipating to be present; victim, defendant, witness or police officer their time has been wasted. For the victim reluctant to attend it might be a final straw in a decision to withdraw. For a police officer it is a further waste of public money when s/he could be "on the streets." For the rule of law it could be a further example of an offender "getting away with it."

Similar problems beset crown court. The ineffective rate in Q1 2016 was 24% compared with <20% in 2019. For a defendant who has pleaded not guilty and is eventually dealt with by a jury trial the median waiting time in Q1 2026 was 48 weeks compared with 27.1 weeks in 2019.  This is the government`s quandary now that the proposed reduction in jury trials is again up for debate. 

The answer to the above disappointing statistics can no longer be the mantra that Covid caused the backlog. There is a strong argument that ineffective trials remain substantially above their pre Covid level insofar as trial receipts continue to exceed trial disposals; the number of open trial cases continues to rise; overlisting remains a major cause of ineffective trials and the time taken to bring cases to completion remains above pre Covid levels. So the question must be asked if Covid was the cause of the problem or merely the event which revealed how little spare capacity the system actually has. If the answer is the latter, putting more meat through the meat grinder cannot be a suitable remedy.

Statistics which are not measured might be helpful in understanding why the courts are in this untenable position.  Are such numbers available?  If not, why not?  Are they available but being withheld? 

To be continued...................................