Cassia Rowland

Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials | Institute for Government There is a lot of uncertainty attached to the potential benefits of the government’s proposed reforms.

NEW REPORT: The government’s proposed reforms to criminal trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and justice, and could lead to further declines in performance and productivity.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

A screenshot from the Institute for Government, which reads, 'A balance must be struck between swift and fair justice The scale of the problem in the criminal courts is immense, and the government is right to consider a wide range of potential solutions. For victims, defendants, and their families, the delays in the courts can be devastating. But the need for swifter justice must be balanced with the need for fair justice. An 18-month or two-year prison sentence is life-changing, and it is crucial that the court system is set up and resourced both to deliver the right outcomes for individual cases, and to maintain public confidence in the system.'

Courts are in real crisis & gov is right to consider all options. But the need for swifter justice must be balanced with the need for fair justice. An 18-month or 2-year prison sentence is life-changing & courts must both deliver the right outcomes in individual cases & maintain public confidence.

A screenshot from the Institute for Government which reads, 'Currently, any adult facing more than six months in prison has a right to a jury trial if they want to exercise it, though most do not do so. Almost all of them will lose that, and instead face the faster and potentially ‘rougher justice’ of magistrates’ courts12 – where the verdict is decided on by one, two or three people, rather than 12, after a much shorter trial in which most defendants’ have more limited access to legal advice. It is hard to argue that this offers an equally robust form of justice as a jury trial in the crown court. The stakes will also be higher – given magistrates’ increased sentencing powers and defendants’ much restricted right to appeal.'

This is esp concerning given simultaneous big increase in mags’ sentencing powers & restrictions on right to appeal. Automatic right of appeal is being abolished & defendants will need permission to appeal. MoJ estimates only ~20% of applicants will get it, though ~40% of appeals are successful now!

A line chart from the Institute for Government of outstanding cases in magistrates' courts, Q1 2019 to Q3 2025, where the number of outstanding cases rises sharply in Q2 of 2020 from just over 200,000 to around 350,000, slowly falls back to around 250,000 in 2023 and since then has been climbing rapidly and is approaching 400,000.

But this is also where biggest risks are. Magistrates’ courts can’t cope with 10–15% increase in demand when backlog is already ballooning. And justice in mags’ courts is frankly less robust: decision is made by 1–3 people, rather than 12, after a short trial w/ more limited access to legal advice.

A table from the Institute for Government showing estimated change in court demand as a result of court reform proposals, according to the IfG's initial estimate and the MoJ central projection

Gov estimates reforms will save ~13% of court time (-19% saving in crown court, +6% in magistrates' courts). Approach is sound but (inevitably) relies on a lot of assumptions and is v uncertain. Just 2-3.5% will be saved by judge-only trials: real time-saver is hearing cases in magistrates’ courts.

Severe court delays make a strong case for doing everything possible to cut the case backlog. But potential savings remain v uncertain and reforms could well backfire: big changes inevitably cause lots of disruption, and deep unpopularity with lawyers risks worsening existing workforce shortages.

Today MPs debate gov's reforms to criminal trials, which aim to cut demand on the crown court by:
1) removing option of jury trial for 000s of defendants
2) increasing magistrates' sentencing powers
3) some crown court trials heard by a judge w/ no jury
4) restricting appeals from mags’ courts

Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials | Institute for Government There is a lot of uncertainty attached to the potential benefits of the government’s proposed reforms.

NEW REPORT: The government’s proposed reforms to criminal trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and justice, and could lead to further declines in performance and productivity.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

Reeves sits down having announced no real new policy measures at this Spring Forecast (but having made a very political speech)

So she did not make this a fiscal event – which is absolutely the right thing for her to do

As the analysis starts of the Gorton and Denton result, I wanted to flag some aspects that my experience yesterday suggests are being over or under-played

(Caveats - I went to Longsight, Gorton and Denton town centres and spoke to as many people as I could, but it was mostly during the working day)

We're developing recommendations for central government to support better coordination in the SEND system.

Have a read of the comment if you'd like a taste of some of the issues we'll be thinking about, and if you have any thoughts please get in touch!

Big unanswered question for me: will there be a right of appeal on matters of fact, rather than points of law, from magistrates' courts?

Keeping more cases in magistrates' courts seems v sensible, but real risks if you end up with 2-3 magistrates' handing out 2 year sentences & no appeal on facts.

Yes - diversity among magistrates is not great, but it's significantly better than diversity among judges!

Totally agree with this. There's a reason we talk about the problem with one person as 'judge, jury and executioner' - having multiple people involved in these decisions makes them more robust. Striking too that cutting jury trials is proposed hand-in-hand with dramatic *restrictions* on appeals

Great comment piece from IfG colleagues on what to expect from next week's Spring Forecast, and why approaching it as a fiscal NON-event is the right call from Reeves

Do follow @danhaile.bsky.social, @martha-ford.bsky.social and @jillongovt.bsky.social for more on this in the week ahead

Interested in joining our fantastic comms team? You have two weeks to get your application in for our 2026-27 comms internship. Send on to others who might be interested!

All roads lead to Romeo | Institute for Government The IfG's experts are in the studio to discuss the tasks ahead for new cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo, ethical standards and local elections U-turns.

PODCAST 🎙️ All roads lead to Romeo

The IfG's experts are in the studio to discuss what new cabinet secretary Antonia Romeo can do to turn the civil service, and perhaps the government, around.

PLUS: Ethics in public life and local elections U-turn www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/podcast/insi...

Our point is more basic: the potential benefits from efficiency gains vastly outweigh those from structural reforms. Ministerial time & attention, funding, political capital & workforce goodwill all have their limits & should be focused where they will have greatest impact: driving up productivity.

Screenshot from an IfG report, which reads: Our recent Public Services Performance Tracker 2025 explored some of the reasons behind the widening productivity gap that has opened up in the crown court in recent years. These include a shortage of criminal lawyers, poor court administration and a long-running lack of investment in court buildings and physical and technological infrastructure. These are not quick or easy problems to fix, but even so there are opportunities for meaningful improvements before 2029. These could be done alongside more moderate proposals to handle some more cases in magistrates’ courts, which would be less likely to provoke backlash.

Screenshot from an IfG report, which reads: Initial steps like matched funding for criminal pupillages14 (barrister trainee positions) and increasing criminal legal aid fees15 are welcome and should help to restore criminal lawyer numbers. Similarly, increased maintenance funding16 should reduce time lost to broken fire alarms and flooded court rooms. But more can be done. The government should focus on understanding what is driving differences in court productivity around the country, with crown courts in Liverpool and much of Wales consistently cited as high performers.17 Are there particular approaches to how cases are listed for trial or judicial behaviour that could be applied elsewhere? What explains the wide variation in the proportion of trials rescheduled at the last minute?

On 2), we don’t assume you could quickly get court productivity back to 2016 levels! We highlight workforce problems as a source of poor productivity & note they’re not quick or easy to fix. We even say some nice things about efforts gov is making in this area (& suggest what else they could do):

If anything, then, our figures are more likely to overstate the impact of reforms than understate them. Critically, most of the impact comes from keeping cases in magistrates’ courts, *not* from judge-only trials. And the government's ability to do this is highly uncertain.

Similarly for judge-only trials: even if each trial was 30% faster on average than a jury trial (more than gov's estimate of 20%) that would only save 2.5% of total court time. That saving could easily be wiped out if, for example, it lead to more criminal lawyers leaving the profession.

Gov is mostly relying on upping magistrates’ sentencing powers from 12 to 18 months, to keep cases out of the crown court. But magistrates are already meant to hear trials for these cases and only send to the crown court for sentencing (which is quick). So in practice, savings could easily be <5%.

For example, we estimate the whole package would reduce demand by 7-10%. That’s based on cutting the number of jury trials by 40-45%, in line w/ MoJ saying ‘roughly half’. I don’t think the measures they’ve announced so far are enough to cut jury trials that much – but gave the benefit of the doubt!

On 1), it’s absolutely right we don’t have complete data. But
a) we have enough to make reasonable estimates
b) we’ve given the gov the benefit of the doubt & made generous assumptions
c) our sensitivity analysis – testing how diff assumptions would change final result - showed little difference.

A screenshot from a letter from the courts minister, Sarah Sackman MP, to the chair of the justice select committee, Andy Slaughter MP, which reads: The Institute for Government Report The Institute for Government’s Report on the court reforms referenced at the panel by Cassia Rowland is a useful contribution to the debate. However, we take issue with the report in two key respects. First, as the Department’s modelling, to be published with the Bill, will show, the IfG has understated the savings that can be achieved by the proposed reforms. This is understandable given they lack the complete data picture. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the IfG’s analysis assumes that court productivity could be restored to 2016 levels in a short space of time and that the backlog could be resolved without making significant reform. That is neither realistic nor does it account for the ways in which the system has changed over the last decade, with a backlog set to hit 100,000 open cases in a year from now. For example, Ms Rowland identified cancelled trials, resulting in wasted sitting days, as a major source of inefficiency. That reflects the workforce challenges and the lack of sufficient lawyers and judges in the system which I described above. That is a workforce issue which requires long term investment and will take years to resolve. The Government has begun to make that investment but it is not an issue which can be addressed in the short term.

Our analysis of the likely impact of the gov’s jury trial reforms has got some attention! This is the courts minister's response to the justice select committee asking about my figures. Here’s why I don’t think it’s a fair assessment: (report here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...)

Antonia Romeo needs to reinvigorate the civil service | Institute for Government The cabinet secretary’s long-term success depends on her ability to reform the state.

Been thinking about the balance Romeo now needs to strike - which is somehow making civil servants (and politicians) really feel how bad things are in the civil service and how sorely needed reforms are, while also convincing them that she is the person that can change it. Quite the tightrope...

Casework Crisis: Increase In Constituency Caseload Takes Its Toll The inexorable growth in casework is stopping MPs from fulfilling their other roles. Alice Lilly sifts through the inbox looking for what might be ...

Really good piece by @aliceolilly.bsky.social on MPs' mounting constituency casework. A big problem that lies at the heart of so much else IMV:

Chart from the institute for government showing the tenure of cabinet secretaries from 1916 to 2026, showing a clear trend of shorter tenures over time

this is bad for the post of cabinet secretary and so bad for the civil service / good government / everyone.

Ha well you’re more likely to hear that from prison officers than the police! Criminal justice services are fascinating bc often argue you should be spending money on *someone else* over them. Not I think what most people expect! To some degree it’s disclaiming responsibility, but not just that imo.

Re cynicism, maybe. *Definitely* v low expectations of political domain, and I think a big part of cultural problems we see in the police comes from a sense that no one outside the police has any understanding of what it’s like & they’re all out to get you, which leads to defending the indefensible.