The Bar Council is highlighting new official court backlog figures which show the backlog of cases in the Crown Court has reduced slightly while the open caseload in the magistrates’ court has increased to an unprecedented high. The new data casts serious doubts over the government’s plans to move cases from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court under its proposals to restrict jury trials.
The latest figures for Q1 (January-March) 2026, published today by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), reveal:
- There are 80,061 open cases in the Crown Court which represents a slight decrease from 80,098 from the previous quarter (Q4 2025) but a 5% increase on the previous year (Q1 2025: 76,357)
- Open caseload in the magistrates’ court in Q1 2026 is 370,222 – this is a 2% increase on Q4 2025 and an 11% increase on the previous year (Q1 2025: 333,194)
Under government proposals, magistrates’ sentencing powers would increase which would see thousands more serious cases be moved to the magistrates’ court. According to the Institute for Government, the proposed reforms would see a 10-15% increase in demand on the magistrates’ court.
In the magistrates’ court in Q1 2026, receipts (the cases coming into the system) were 386,056 which is well above disposals (completed cases) at 380,082, suggesting the backlog will continue to worsen in those courts.
The Bar Council has long called for more funding for our overstretched and resource starved justice system, tackling inefficiencies to reduce the court backlogs. Following our calls for change, the government lifted the cap on the number of days courts can ‘sit’ each year, but there is much more to be done to ensure cases are heard sooner and to improve access to justice.
The Bar Council represents more than 18,000 barristers practising in England and Wales. Barristers say that delays in the Crown Court are caused by many different reasons, including crumbling court buildings and prisoner transport services delivering defendants to the incorrect court, several hours late, or not at all. Barristers almost never say cases are delayed because of juries or jurors.
The Bar Council has highlighted specific Crown Courts where concerted action has been taken already to reduce the backlogs, for example in Maidstone and Canterbury Crown Courts where the increase in sitting days and the use of additional court rooms has helped to reduce the number of outstanding cases. And in Preston Crown Court where domestic abuse cases are prioritised which has seen a 16% reduction in waiting time for cases to be listed. The Bar Council has asked the government to consider what more could be achieved with a properly resourced system.
Today’s figures reinforce the Bar Council position that the government should not reduce the right to a jury trial. In fact, the Chair of the Bar argues it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle and undermine public trust and confidence in criminal justice.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council, said: “The latest courts backlog – which is reducing – reflect over a decade of underinvestment in the justice system and also show that the courts are able to bring down waiting times without reducing juries. They also cast serious doubt over the government’s proposals that will pile more pressure into the magistrates’ courts.
“As the latest data shows, where courts are fully in operation and judges are able to manage their lists with aggressive case management and active engagement from the Crown Prosecution Service senior lawyers, waiting times are reducing.
"If the government urgently fulfils its December pledge to increase legal aid, this will go some way to retaining barristers required to prosecute and defend case and so further reduce delays.
“The evidence is clear: more sitting days, intense targeted listing of offences with vulnerable witnesses, complainants or defendants and improved infrastructure reduce waiting times and decrease the backlog. Increasing legal aid helps the retention of barristers to prosecute and defend. There is no necessity to hack at the important constitutional principle of a jury trial.”