Day 33 · Proposal 32 · Part XIV · Policy 35
32
Rebuild the Courts System
Reduce the backlog. Hear cases sooner. Deliver fair and timely justice.
Open for scrutiny — Manifesto 1.1
Proposal 32 would begin a properly modelled expansion of Britain’s court capacity to reduce criminal-case backlogs, hear cases within a reasonable time and deliver justice sooner for victims. The master manifesto gives an illustrative example of 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts, but the final scale, locations, budget and ongoing costs must follow evidence and expert scrutiny.
Published Manifesto 1.1 policy. The sections below set out the proposal as published. Questions and challenges are open questions, not settled answers.
1. 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.
Core commitment
Timely hearings. Fair trials. Victims supported. Backlogs reduced.
2. 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: Reduce avoidable delay from the first hearing through to trial, sentence or another appropriate disposal.
- Justice for victims: Shorten unnecessary waits while improving communication, support and confidence in the justice process.
3. 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 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 specialists.
- Capacity in the Crown Prosecution Service, defence profession and legal-aid system must grow alongside physical court capacity.
- Secure digital systems should assist case management without weakening accessibility or open justice.
- A functioning and timely court system is essential to public confidence.
4. A citizen-led starting point
This proposal is a starting point for evidence, professional scrutiny and public discussion — 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, 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.
5. 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 the expanded system. Every assumption requires independent modelling before commitment.
Illustrative capital estimate
Illustrative capital estimate: £3–5 billion for additional court capacity — subject to independent modelling.
6. 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 prosecution, defence, legal-aid, caseworker and expert-evidence capacity.
- Secure technology, evidence handling, case-management systems and cyber resilience.
- Utilities, maintenance, interpretation, security, witness support and long-term asset renewal.
- Annual operating expenditure must be modelled separately from capital construction costs.
7. A staged delivery test
- 01Need: Publish court-level evidence covering caseloads, backlogs, delays, utilisation and the condition of the existing estate.
- 02Location: Place additional capacity where demand, population, travel times, rural access and regional inequality justify it.
- 03Workforce: Demonstrate how every additional courtroom would be supported by judges, magistrates, court staff, lawyers and partner agencies.
- 04Affordability: Test both capital expenditure and annual operating costs against a realistic and sustainable justice budget.
8. Questions for scrutiny
- 01Do current caseload and backlog forecasts justify 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts?
- 02Could reopening, refurbishing or extending existing courts deliver better value than constructing every site from new?
- 03Where should additional capacity be located to reflect demand, travel times, rural access and regional inequality?
- 04How much extra capacity is required in magistrates’ courts compared with Crown Courts?
- 05How many judges, magistrates, clerks, ushers, listing officers, security staff and specialists would be required?
- 06Can the CPS, defence profession, legal-aid system, police, prisons and probation support the proposed expansion?
- 07What standards should govern communication and practical support for victims and witnesses?
- 08How much could faster case progression safely reduce remand pressure?
- 09What contingency, inflation, land and refurbishment assumptions should sit behind the illustrative £3–5 billion range?
- 10What annual operating costs would follow construction, and how would they be funded sustainably?
- 11Which targets should measure progress without encouraging rushed hearings or compromising fair-trial rights?
- 12What procurement and oversight model would prevent delay, cost escalation and poor construction quality?
9. Core purpose
Core purpose
Cases heard sooner. Fairness protected. Victims supported. Justice delivered.
10. 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 needed to make additional courtrooms work.
Source basis: Manifesto 1.1, Part XIV, Policy 35, “Courts”, Major Promise 32 and Justice Budget 3.1. The source gives illustrative totals of 125 additional magistrates’ courts and 30 additional Crown Courts, with an original illustrative capital estimate of £3–5 billion. Ongoing operating costs are separate and require modelling.
Read. Question. Challenge. Improve.
This is a public-scrutiny working proposal. Questions, evidence, objections and alternatives are welcome.
Have Your Say
What is your view on this proposal?
Scrutiny, not endorsement. Disagreement is as useful here as support.
Responses are counted anonymously and the running totals are shown publicly beside each option. One response per device, changeable at any time.
Have an objection, question or better alternative?
Set out your argument. Serious challenges shape later versions of the manifesto.