The Wait for Justice is Criminal.

According to a report published by the UK House of Lords' Select Committee on the Constitution, the case backlog in the criminal justice system has reached "crisis level". The report highlighted the significant increase in Crown Court cases from 39,000 pre pandemic, to 55,000 post (since then it has peaked at 59,532 cases). Alongside the Crown Court cases, the Magistrates backlog rose to more than 400,000 at the height of the pandemic. I believed that anyone with an ounce of logic and common sense should be able to identify that these numbers are dangerous and unsustainable. Dangerous, as a trial listed in 2023 can impact witnesses, statements, evidence and victims, often leading to cases being discontinued or thrown out; and unsustainable as people will lose faith in the criminal justice system which will ultimately lead to its demise. Obviously, this is a matter of urgency that requires a swift and efficient solution, to hold criminals accountable and to deter further criminal activity; for the sake of victims and society.

Despite the obvious urgency, Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland has defied logic, common sense and apparently his moral compass, to defend what he regards as not "historically high" figures and to lie about trial waiting times. To tackle his denial of trials being listed in 2023 first, Buckland received huge backlash as many solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals spoke up and shared example after example of the increasing number of trials being listed in 2023. This is embarrassing. It clearly demonstrates that Buckland is either ignorant to the issues that face the criminal justice system or he chooses not to acknowledge them. As a result, his failure to address the issue appropriately is in contrary to the rule of law; to deliver justice in a timely manner. A constitutional doctrine that legislation explicitly states he must uphold. His dogmatic refusal that trials are being listed as far in advance as 2023 is evidence of his disconnect from the profession. The only explanation for Buckland's abandonment of his constitutional role and duties is to play party politics, to please those above him to further his political career. Whereas a Lord Chancellor should see their post as the pinnacle of their legal career, as their duty is to protect the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and to uphold the rule of law.

However, it is not the jurisprudential element that is the most shocking, it is the impact on the victims, their families, friends and society. When a trial is listed so far in advance, issues develop. Memory is fallible, thus, eyewitnesses forget or misremember key information. As a result, there are mistrials, lack of reliable evidence, acquittals of the guilty and prosecution of the innocent. Trials that far in advance also have a large financial impact as an increase in trials and appeals require buildings, facilities, staff, legal professionals and much more; costing the taxpayer, the victim and the defendant. Subsequently, justice is becoming more and more unaffordable, as evidenced by extreme budget cuts that have seen court closures and a reduction in criminal legal aid and victim support. Therefore, this simple denial of fact has a much larger butterfly effect that can and does negatively impact the lives of thousands of innocent English and Welsh citizens each year.

Secondly, figures are not "historically high" as the backlog reached 55,000 in 2014. However, it simply defies logic that Buckland advocates this with pride. These figures clearly indicate a criminal justice system that is on its knees. Extreme budget cuts have resulted in fewer courts and fewer sitting days, while the influx of criminal legislation leads to an increase in crimes, subsequently, cases. Consequently, stretching the criminal justice system too thin in an attempt to pick up the slack. We can clearly see that this is not succeeding. As one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world, how can we be proud of a criminal justice system that delivers sub-par justice at snail speed? It is unfathomable to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the man tasked with ensuring the delivery of justice can proudly advocate its own demise. Buckland is proud that the backlog is not much worse than it was in 2014, but he is missing the point entirely! He should not be proud of it being not much worse than in 2014, he should be disgusted that is can even reach a figure that high again, let alone surpass it. He should be injecting cash into the system to multiply the facilities available for justice and better the remaining ones. He should be ready with a plan of action and a policy that clearly sets out how he plans to deal with this outrageously and unsustainably high figure. He should be proudly advocating that the backlog is as low as possible, not that it is, not much worse than 2014!

This issue provides very real consequences for those unfortunate enough to be tangled in the mess we call a criminal justice system. Refunding the criminal justice system would go a long way in returning it to its former glory. Although, serious thought is needed to devise a policy that ensures the accurate and consistent delivery of justice in the short term and the long term. Without it, I am confident in the complete failure of the justice system, as good will alone is not enough to keep it afloat.