THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS JUST THE BEGINNING

For those who wonder how on earth our so called justice system is very near breaking point on a number of parameters there is no need to search legal journals or listen to here today gone tomorrow politicians of all shades tell their tales of fantasy. My post today in https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/ dated 3rd December 2010 is merely a glimpse of the total inadequacy of a single member of a cabinet recently selected to follow Tony Blair`s Labour defeat.


With a new prime minister appearing to follow the Tik Tok approach to politics we are already on the downhill slope to abject failure. The shenanigans at MOJ are being repeated in almost every sphere of government to be publicly revealed when the bubble bursts. Immigration policy denied then approved by the minister in charge is but one example.


So as we all are advised to stock up with water, tinned food, battery radios, cash in hand and all the necessities for a possible descent into an undeclared wartime situation my near relatives who actually participated in a real war would be turning in their graves at the state in which our country has descended since their heroics.

EARLY RELEASE: JUST ONE SIGN OF A FAILING JUSTICE SYSTEM

This time last year the phrase early release would generally have had little meaning or recognition amongst many [most?] of the great British public.  Where it might have resonated with people would have been with regard to those being released from over crowded hospitals before their maladies warranted such discharge in order to free up bed spaces. Currently in the face of public disquiet the phrase has widespread recognition of a government policy that a prisoner may be released long before the public believes justice has been served.  For years successive governments have spoken of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection. Yet the gap between the language of politicians and the expectations of ordinary people remains a recurring source of discontent. 

Recent polling provides some indication of the scale of that dissatisfaction. In August 2026 Ipsos reported that 69 per cent of those surveyed opposed the early-release scheme then under discussion while 79 per cent regarded prison sentences being too short as a serious problem. In May 2025 a YouGov survey found that three quarters of respondents thought the prison system was working badly. When asked what single change they would most like to see 17 per cent called for longer sentences or for prisoners to serve their full terms while an equal proportion favoured rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. These findings deserve attention but they must be read with care: a response to a particular question is not necessarily a settled view on every aspect of sentencing policy. Nor does dissatisfaction with early release automatically establish that sentencing guidelines themselves are defective.

There is, however, a glaring gap in any discussion of this nature.  Where is the reliable evidence showing how many members of the public, how many serving judges, magistrates, barristers and solicitors believe the guidelines are no longer fit for purpose? Without that evidence, assertions about what the country wants remain political claims rather than demonstrated conclusions.  The point in question as in so many others is the lack of sufficient  transparency that is consistent and credible to command public confidence a criticism which applies to all governments. 

Generally speaking polling suggests that given a say there is a public demand for five changes or improvements to the justice system.  There is doubt that offenders face consequences that fit the crime.  This does not establish that the public invariably wants longer prison sentences. It indicates that people want punishment to have meaning and offenders to be held responsible.

Public protection and more effective policing are felt to be lacking.  A YouGov survey published in March 2026 found widespread lack of confidence among adults in England and Wales in the system's ability to investigate minor crimes, impose appropriate sentences and reform offenders. It also found that 56% of victims who reported crimes were dissatisfied with the way police handled their cases.  Politicians speaking tough at party conferences  are soon exposed when actions fail their rhetorical flourishes. 

Since Covid long delays affect victims, defendants, witnesses and the proposal to reduce jury trials has exposed those delays to a wider public. 

An interesting finding from 2025 research is that the public is sceptical about the effectiveness of prison in preventing further crime. 

30% believed prison makes reoffending more likely.

35% believed it makes no difference.

21% believed it makes reoffending less likely.

In simple terms many people have little confidence that current policies of rehabilitation are succeeding.  Proven reoffending among adult offenders in England and Wales rose from around 23% during the pandemic to 28–30% in the latest published figures.  The 2025 More in Common research found that 58% thought the criminal justice system did a bad job of reducing crime while 39% thought it did a bad job of protecting the public. In September 2026, further polling reported that only 18% believed people who commit crimes usually face real consequences.

Apart from the government lap dog AKA, The Magistrates Association, there has been little support in legal circles for the Starmer government`s plan to reduce availability of jury trials. With magistrates` recruitment in crisis and increasing numbers of experienced JPs reaching the extended retirement age of 75 the concern must be the abilities of the lower court to offer quality judicial decisions especially with the current automatic right of appeal likely to be restricted.  

When sentencing is discussed, the most consistent question of opinion offered to the public is that of the death penalty.  It`s a subject so profound that I still have the school exercise book  in which whilst in Primary 7 when, years before its abolition, I wrote a few hundred words on why capital punishment should be abolished.  A YouGov survey in 2022  suggests that support for it stood at 40%, opposition 50% and 10% don`t know.  By November 2025, however, YouGov reported a change: 50% supported reintroducing capital punishment for some crimes compared with 45% opposed.  The particular offences proposed for that most serious punishment were listed as the murder of a child, murder committed as part of a terrorist act and multiple murder.

Like many parts of the Bible the basis of all sentencing, the Sentencing Guidelines, is open to interpretation.  Are they no longer fit for purpose? What do the public and legal profession think?  Public opinion is charted below.

In January 2025 the Law Society of England and Wales responded to the Government's sentencing review. Its response argued that successive governments had increased sentence lengths and created additional offences. It also raised concerns about sentence inflation, under resourced probation services and the consequences of inadequate information for sentencers. However this response cannot be treated as a poll of all solicitors, barristers and judges.

It`s not too impulsive to believe that the now easily recognised policy of early release which has been available in some form for decades has not become more acceptable to many people.  

There is a growing divide between what the criminal justice system says it is trying to achieve and what the public believes it is delivering. Sentencing guidelines are intended to ensure consistency and fairness but how can public confidence survive when the sentence announced in court seems so different from the time an offender actually spends behind bars? That is not, in itself, proof that the guidelines are wrong. It does, however, raise a question that the justice system cannot afford to ignore.

We must distinguish between the sentence imposed by the court and the time actually served. The first is determined by the judge or magistrates applying the law and the relevant guidelines; the second depends on the rules governing release. Yet the public hears the sentence, not the small print. When an offender is released much earlier than people expected it is hardly surprising that they question what the original sentence really meant. If the system wishes to retain public confidence it must explain that difference honestly and clearly.

Rehabilitation is another part of the equation. If offenders return to crime we must ask whether the measures intended to prevent it are working. Rehabilitation matters but it cannot simply be accepted as a worthy objective without examining the results.

And what of early release? Should it be something an offender earns through good behaviour, genuine engagement with rehabilitation and evidence of readiness to return to society, rather than something routinely anticipated? There is a strong case for that approach provided decisions are based on proper assessment and public safety is not compromised.

Prison overcrowding may demand urgent action but it should not become a substitute for a coherent sentencing policy. The public is entitled to expect punishment to mean something, rehabilitation to produce results and release decisions to be made responsibly.

Ultimately, the first duty of a sentencing system must be to protect the public. Punishment and rehabilitation both have a part to play but neither should be allowed to take precedence over the safety of the law abiding majority. That must be the starting point for any serious debate about sentencing reform.

DOES JURY RANDOMNESS STILL SERVE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE?

Juries: I think that my reader is well aware of the controversy emanating from the previous incumbent at the Ministry of Justice and his wish to eliminate some trials currently happening before a jury of "12 good men and true" although that early 17th century, 'good' implied distinguished rank or valour. The following is an attempt to reveal the underlying reality of juries and jurors.  But first some history: the modern English jury as we know it was established 1/6/1974 by the Juries Act.  Juries are selected by designated local catchment areas with reference to post codes. 

The current basic requirements for jury service are:-

Age: 18-75 on the date service starts

Registration:be on electoral register

Residency: lived in UK for at least 5 years since aged 13

Foreign nationals who meet Residency rule

Disqualifications are:-

Bail: anyone currently on bail connected to a criminal offence

Criminal Convictions: anyone who has received a custodial or detention sentence of at least 5 years

Recent Sentences: of custody active or suspended or community order or drug rehabilitation requirement within last 5 years.

It would seem that lacking a comprehensive knowledge of the English language would be a given for rejection of a juror but that assumption, unlike in America, is rather hasty because under s12 of the Juries Act 1974 defence and prosecution have the right to challenge an individual juror but they must provide a cause: prima facie evidence to the judge proving the juror is unfit to serve and before the juror is sworn.  That is therefore a rather difficult task in the circumstances. In addition a juror can be challenged if related to or knows persons involved in the case.  For obvious reasons an employee of the CPS cannot be a juror on a case prosecuted by his/her employer nor can a police officer if connected to the police station where s/he is based.  A juror can be excused if having served as such within two years previously. 

The prosecution retains an ancient right known as "Stand By for the Crown" to ask a juror to step down without giving an immediate reason.  This applies only when the potential juror is clearly unable to serve, eg if drunk or in high profile cases involving national security. It is the judge, however, who has the finial say in the discharge of a juror.  

Other common law based jurisdictions including Australia and some American states allow more challenges to potential jurors. 

The principle of a random selection of "peers" to determine a defendant`s guilt or innocence is now being questioned. Since 1945 this country has been subject to unprecedented levels of immigration and those newcomers have tended to settle with their kith and kin to the extent that today for example there is a concentration of non white citizens in various areas, eg 

English courts have historically ruled that "randomness" overrides "forced representation".  In practice this means that where an ethnic minority defendant is tried in an urban centre before a highly diverse jury the outcome could be different if the exact same offence were tried before a mono-racial jury.  This is no esoteric subject for ivory tower debate.  Annually roughly 350,000 - 480,000 citizens are randomly selected for jury duty and around 200,000 are actually selected to undertake jury service sitting on 13,000+ completed trials.  However recently, and the topic of some of my posts here earlier this year, the subject of perverse verdicts has become more than just a matter for legal eagles` discussions over tea and scones in an Oxbridge college. It focuses minds on whether "randomness" is approaching its sell by date. 

In landmark cases like R- v-Ford [1989] and R-v-Bridge[2019] the Court Of Appeal established that a defendant does not have a legal right to a racially balanced jury nor can a judge deliberately manipulate the random selection process to engineer an ethnically diverse jury pool.  Although perverse verdicts in a handful of high profile cases have drawn attention, particularly protest related ones, overall conviction rates in the Crown Court have been fairly stable over the long term, which doesn’t suggest a growing pattern of “runaway” acquittals.  However there is perception and there is reality.   Academics and civil rights groups have pointed out there is a major issue with perception and trust. 

The fact that no research has been or is allowed into the findings of a jury and how those findings were constructed are firmly closed to scrutiny leads to speculation, educated or otherwise.  Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes inquiry into their deliberations an offence. Professor Cheryl Thomas’s research for the Ministry of Justice found no sign of systematic bias and found that verdicts broadly tracked the evidence. Variation between juries is inevitable but variation is not unreliability. The more pressing question is trust. Government intentions to remove some offences from eligibility for trial by jury are now in a state of flux.  Reducing the trial backlog as the reason for the proposed changes has been exposed as a possible curtain over more nefarious reasons.  

The case for the reform is vulnerable on its own terms. The evidence suggests that juries are not the primary cause of the backlog and the government’s own estimate of the saving is some £31 million, about 0.2% of the Ministry’s budget. The Criminal Bar Association attributes delay to chronic underfunding and restricted sitting days and warns that shifting fact finding to a less diverse judiciary risks undermining public confidence. The Institute for Government has gone further, cautioning that the changes could raise the risk of wrongful convictions.

The irony is plain. Random selection, the very feature that critics might point to as a weakness, is what gives a jury verdict its legitimacy. A decision by twelve strangers carries a representative authority that a single judge, however able, cannot replicate. If public confidence in the criminal process is to be protected the more promising course is to address resourcing and court capacity, not to trade away the one institution that the public demonstrably trusts but for how much longer.

INEFFECTIVE TRIALS 2013-2026: WHY HAS SO LITTLE CHANGED? PART 3

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.  It`s not uncommon for a foreign language to express sentiment, observation or opinion more pithily and accurately than in English. And so it is on the subject of this my final thoughts on ineffective trials. 

As a reminder in 2013 ineffective magistrates court trials were already 18%.  By 2015 the figure had fallen to 15%. Then along came Covid. Current figures suggest that nearly 90,000 cases are awaiting trial at the magistrates court with overlisting still being considered at around 23% of cause of ineffective trials.  It seems that the problem is known but the remedy is not.   I have previously written what an ineffective trial really is and the ramifications it has for all those involved.  The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts has made the point with unusual clarity. Courts are under pressure to reduce backlogs while dealing with uncertainty over sitting days, judicial availability and case preparation. Overlisting becomes a way of trying to ensure that court time is not wasted when a trial drops out but when the listed cases actually do proceed some cannot be heard and become ineffective.  As I wrote in Part 2, " When too many cases enter the system [overlisting] some trials do not proceed and add to the queue in a vicious circle."

A courtroom is not a railway carriage.  If there are ten passengers and only six seats putting ten people on the platform does not increase the number of seats. Courts have a finite number of courtrooms, judges, magistrates, legal advisers and sitting hours.  Current listing practice is like force feeding geese to expand their livers prior to their slaughter to produce pâté de foie gras although it might initially make the waiting list look worse; so be it.  An honest waiting list is preferable to an apparently efficient list in which cases repeatedly collapse and have to be relisted. 

We are told almost daily of the advances in AI and daily there is a not insubstantial number of courts closed for myriad reasons.  Below is the crown court  situation today. 

Distant video hearings have been commonplace for ever increasing forms of hearings. With a well designed system underutilised courtrooms could be considered for an expansion of such hearings.  There will obviously be cases where geography, defendant welfare, witnesses, security or the interests of justice make transfer to such courts inappropriate but where those considerations do not apply, spare capacity should be capable of being used.  A case should go to an available court real or video rather than wait unnecessarily for an unavailable court.

I ended Part 2 of this series as follows,"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?"  I would suggest that it might be useful to know of an ineffective trial:-

Why did it fail?

When was it first apparent that it would fail?

Could the problem have been avoided?

Who was in a position to prevent it?

How much court and professional time had already been spent?

How long did the defendant, victim and witnesses subsequently have to wait?

A box ticking exercise perhaps but one which could produce greater efficiency in the gathering of statistics and forming a realistic platform on which to consider change. If the problem is truly over listing then changes surely must be considered. 

If it is poor prosecution preparation, change prosecution case management.
If it is defence readiness address that.
If it is lack of court capacity, provide more capacity or reduce demand.
If it is judicial or legal adviser availability, deal with that directly.



A statistic which merely says "ineffective" is a description.
A statistic which identifies the preventable cause is a tool for reform. Every trial which fails to take place has cost money; in many cases lots of money, such sums currently not known to the public. Another example of statistics not known or wanted by the MOJ or known and withheld. To list but a few that come to mind in terms of possible cost:-


How many judicial hours?
How many court staff?
How many advocates?
How many witnesses?
How many police officers?
How many hours of preparation?
How many journeys?

A court that lists fewer cases but hears them effectively may be performing better than a court which appears extremely busy but continually adjourns, relists and reopens cases.  Even in my time on the bench there were various training sessions in pushing matters to an early conclusion the most memorable being under the slogan CJSSS:  Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary.  That was followed by  "Stop Delaying Justice!" initiative that succeeded CJSSS in 2011. Legal analysts, senior judges and practitioners generally view programs like CJSSS and Stop Delaying Justice! as short-term successes that ultimately collapsed because they failed to fix the fundamental structural issues of the wider justice system.  There is a danger especially with a new government which is using modern social media in attempts to furnish its image that the answer to every difficulty will be another administrative reform, another procedure, another target or another management initiative. 

There are only two fundamental ways to reduce an overloaded system: increase capacity or reduce demand and preferably both. In addition to enough sitting days, judges, magistrates, legal advisors, courtrooms and properly prepared advocates to deal with the work which Parliament requires the courts to undertake, does every case currently entering the criminal courts need to consume the amount of court resource it presently does?

After thirteen years perhaps the statistics have finally done their job. They have shown that ineffective trials are not simply occasional accidents nor a problem created by Covid. They are symptoms of a criminal justice system which has repeatedly struggled to match the work demanded of it with the capacity available.  An uncomfortable [for some] conclusion is, as in so many aspects of our society, we have become better at managing failure than preventing it.  A case which repeatedly returns to the list is not evidence of efficiency. It is evidence that something has gone wrong.  When a trial fails the system should know why, whether the failure could have been avoided and what it cost. 

The lesson from 2013–2026 is therefore simple. We already know much of what goes wrong. The real question is whether there is now the courage to change the system that allows it to happen.

THE END.