Our dysfunctional courts system is making a mockery of justice
There’s an old communist era Russian joke – let’s set it in 1950 – featuring a Soviet citizen who is important or lucky enough to qualify for ownership of a private car. Having obtained their permit and paid in advance, they are then offered a collection date: 15th January, 1957. The would-be motorist sighs in disappointment. “I’m sorry, that’s no good. The plumber’s coming that day to fix my boiler”.
No doubt contemporary Russians hearing the above would have smiled in stoical recognition of the leaden feet of sclerotic bureaucracy, accepted as a fact of life akin to harsh winters or old age: undesirable but unavoidable. Fortunately for national governments, people have a tendency to normalise dysfunction if it goes on long enough.
That human tendency might explain why a recent news item in the Northern Echo didn’t make the front page – or feature anywhere in the national press. A person charged with assault appeared at Teesside Crown Court in September 2025, and was released on unconditional bail until the date set for trial: August 9, 2028 – a delay of almost three years. Let’s hope the accused doesn’t have a hip replacement scheduled for the same day.
Such a ludicrous timescale is typical of the current state of the UK courts, with a record Crown Court backlog of more than 76,000 cases recorded in June 2025. Justice delayed to this extent may not, strictly speaking, be justice denied, but it is certainly justice devalued, both in the eyes of the accused and the alleged victim. A number of damaging consequences follow.
The important deterrent effect of any subsequent sanction is much reduced if pushed so far into the future – not just on the individual, who might feel free to commit further offences while on bail, but also on others tempted by criminality: ‘Don’t steal that watch, you might be punished in a few years’ time’ is not a helpful message. The effect on an accused person who is eventually found not guilty is even more pernicious, with the shadow of suspicion looming over their personal and professional life. If they are remanded in prison, there is in theory a Custody Time Limit of up to 8 months, but in practice this can be far longer.
The victim also suffers when justice is delayed for such long periods. The emotional impact of, for example, a physical assault or household burglary can be mitigated to some extend by swift retribution – the satisfaction of seeing the perpetrator paying for their misdeeds – but the opposite also holds. In domestic violence cases, the threat is likely to be ongoing when the perpetrator remains at large. Victims are also more vulnerable to pre-trial intimidation, by the accused or his/her associates.
Delays of years before a case comes to court make the process itself less effective. Witnesses are likely to forget details over such a period of time; other key players may have disappeared, died or changed their mind about co-operating – all of which will reduce confidence in right outcome being achieved.
Of course, it’s not just the intolerable court delays which are undermining the UK justice system. We also have a sentencing policy determined by the shortage of prison places, rather than an analysis of what custodial punishments are actually needed; a policing strategy driven by the ‘operational independence’ of senior police officers, which has largely removed the reassurance of a visible police presence off our streets; and ever-decreasing detection and prosecution rates. However, there’s very little point in improving other aspects of the justice system if there is a demoralising bottle-neck in the final stage of the process.
Reinstating an efficient court system is not an inherently difficult task - more car mechanics than rocket science. The current failings are the result of lack of sufficient resources to deal with demand, including lawyers, judges, and courtrooms – exacerbated by the reduction in legal aid funding, and pressures on prison capacity.
Politicians are well aware that whilst the public want offenders dealt with fairly and swiftly, there’s no great appetite for allocating scarce resources to achieve this objective. The law-abiding citizen might prefer their town to have a new leisure centre rather than a new courthouse – unless personally caught up in the miseries of long-delayed proceedings. Nevertheless, there is a compelling case for putting the justice system near the top of many competing priorities. The first duty of the government is to keep citizens safe and the country secure. This includes providing an efficient and effective justice system which ensures that people feel safe in their homes and communities.
The alternative is a continued spiral of dysfunction, where the normalisation of an inadequate and unfair judicial process eats away at our personal and national sense of security and well-being.
Tony Evans is a freelance writer, political commentator, and former Ofsted Registered Inspector.
