DAY 33 · PROPOSAL 32 · PART XIV · POLICY 35
Rebuild the Courts System.
Reduce the backlog. Hear cases sooner. Deliver fair and timely justice.
The core idea
Manifesto 1.1 proposes a major expansion of court capacity as a starting point for reducing the backlog of criminal cases.
The source policy gives an illustrative example of 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts.
People accused of criminal offences should have their cases heard fairly and within a reasonable time. Victims and witnesses should not be left waiting unnecessarily for answers, accountability and justice.
More buildings alone will not solve the problem. Judges, magistrates, court staff, prosecutors, defence lawyers, legal aid, technology and victim-support services must all be planned together.
The illustrative scale
125 additional magistrates’ courts
Illustrative additional capacity for the courts that hear most criminal cases at first instance.
30 additional Crown Courts
Illustrative additional capacity for serious offences, jury trials and cases sent for sentence.
Faster case progression
The objective would be to reduce avoidable delays from the first hearing through to trial, sentence or another appropriate disposal.
Justice for victims
Victims should face shorter unnecessary waits, clearer communication and better support throughout the justice process.
Why timely justice matters
Delay affects every part of the criminal justice process. It can prolong uncertainty for defendants, deepen distress for victims, weaken witness recall and increase pressure on prisons, lawyers, prosecutors and court staff.
Capacity reform must protect fairness and due process. Speed must never become an end in itself.
- Defendants should have their cases heard within a reasonable time, with proper preparation and fair-trial rights protected.
- Victims should receive earlier resolution, clearer communication and practical support.
- Witnesses should face fewer avoidable adjournments and delays.
- Faster case progression could reduce unnecessary remand pressure while preserving judicial independence.
- Court expansion must include judges, magistrates, clerks, ushers, listing teams, security staff and specialist workers.
- Capacity in the Crown Prosecution Service, defence profession and legal-aid system must grow alongside physical court capacity.
- Secure and reliable digital systems should assist case management without weakening accessibility or open justice.
A citizen-led starting point
This proposal is presented as a basis for evidence, professional scrutiny and public discussion. It is not a final national court estates plan.
Illustrative numbers
The proposed court totals are examples for testing. Independent justice expertise and local caseload evidence must determine the final scale, mix and locations.
Evidence before commitment
Court-level caseloads, backlogs, waiting times, utilisation, accessibility and estate condition should be published and examined before investment decisions are made.
No shortcuts on fairness
Backlog reduction must never compromise disclosure, preparation, legal representation, judicial independence or the right to a fair trial.
Publish the evidence
Demand modelling, assumptions, costs, delivery timetables and measured outcomes should remain open to public scrutiny.
Costing the ambition honestly
The master manifesto records an original illustrative capital estimate of £3–5 billion for 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts.
This is not a final programme budget and does not include the full annual cost of operating an expanded court system. Every assumption requires detailed and independent modelling before commitment.
Costs that must be modelled
- Sites, planning, land, transport links, enabling works and local infrastructure.
- Construction, refurbishment, courtrooms, custody areas, jury facilities and accessibility.
- Recruitment, appointment, pay, pensions and training for the judiciary and court workforce.
- Additional capacity for prosecution, defence, legal aid, caseworkers and expert evidence.
- Secure technology, evidence handling, case-management systems and cyber resilience.
- Utilities, maintenance, interpretation, security, witness support and long-term asset renewal.
A staged delivery test
Need
Publish court-level evidence covering caseloads, backlogs, delays, utilisation and the condition of the existing estate.
Location
Place additional capacity where demand, population, travel times, rural access and regional inequality justify it.
Workforce
Demonstrate how every additional courtroom would be supported by judges, magistrates, court staff, lawyers and partner agencies.
Affordability
Test both capital expenditure and annual operating costs against a realistic and sustainable justice budget.
Questions for scrutiny
- Do current caseload and backlog forecasts justify 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts?
- Could reopening, refurbishing or extending existing courts deliver better value than building every site from new?
- Where should additional capacity be located to reflect demand, travel times, rural access and regional inequality?
- How much additional capacity is required in magistrates’ courts compared with Crown Courts?
- How many judges, magistrates, clerks, ushers, listing officers, security staff and specialists would be required?
- Can the CPS, defence profession, legal-aid system, police, prisons and probation support the proposed expansion?
- What standards should govern communication and practical support for victims and witnesses?
- How much could faster case progression safely reduce remand pressure?
- What contingency, inflation, land and refurbishment assumptions should sit behind the illustrative £3–5 billion range?
- What annual operating costs would follow construction, and how would they be funded sustainably?
- Which targets could measure progress without encouraging rushed hearings or compromising fair-trial rights?
- What procurement and oversight model would prevent delay, cost escalation and poor construction quality?
The proposed direction
Proposal 32 would begin a properly modelled programme to expand court capacity and reduce criminal-case backlogs.
The master manifesto’s example is 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts, but the final scale, mix and locations must follow evidence and expert scrutiny.
Buildings alone are not a justice system. Any expansion must be matched by the judiciary, court staff, prosecution, defence, legal aid, victim and witness services, security, technology and sustainable operating funding required to make additional courtrooms work.
Source basis: Manifesto 1.1, Part XIV, Policy 35, “Courts”, Major Promise 32 and Justice Budget 3.1.