MPs warn of ‘unrealistic’ demands on magistrates’ courts and ‘shocking’ lack of judicial diversity in Government court reforms

MPs are ‘not convinced' the magistrates' court will be able to cope with the potential increase in caseload the Government's flagship court reforms could generate and it requires ‘significant additional support', a new Justice Committee report has warned. 

The target of reaching 21,000 magistrates by 2029 is ‘unrealistic', the Committee cautioned, adding previous recruitment campaigns have ‘fallen far short', retention remains a ‘persistent challenge' and there is a ‘chronic shortage' of suitably qualified legal advisers. Numbers stood at approximately 15,000 in 2025.

Ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill returning to the Commons, the Committee published a detailed critique of the Government's Bill following extensive analysis. While recognising the scale of the Crown Court backlog, with some victims told they will wait until 2030 for trials to be heard, the report called on Ministers to set out ‘in much more detail than it has done so far, that the plan to expand capacity in the magistrates' court is deliverable'.  

On equality, the Committee concluded ‘we share the significant concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the bill, particularly in relation to race'. The Bill proposes to expand the role of the magistrates' court and introduce judge only Crown Court proceedings, while reducing the role of juries.

Yet the Lammy Review in 2017 concluded that juries are one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where Black and Ethnic Minority defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes.

The Committee said it was ‘shocking' that only 1% of Crown Court judges are Black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. It recommended that the Government takes action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary that sets out a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035.

The absence of a formal response by Government to Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review of the Criminal Courts has ‘inhibited scrutiny' of its reform proposals the report said, adding that ‘given the constitutional significance of the bill, it would have been proportionate for the Government to have facilitated more meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, in particular, by allowing the Justice Committee to conduct pre-legislative  scrutiny'.

The report concluded it is ‘difficult to understand why the government has not sought to achieve a broader consensus on these proposals, both within Parliament and outside before pushing ahead with them'.

The report raised concerns over the lack of reliable data on which to base an estimate of the number of cases that will be retained in the magistrates' court because of the removal of the right to elect for Crown Court trial. It is difficult to predict how magistrates' courts will approach the allocation of cases under the proposals in the Bill, especially as magistrates' sentencing powers are set to be increased to 18 months but could also be increased to 24 months, it added.     

MPs recommended that the government introduce additional safeguards to the power for the Government to double the sentencing powers of magistrates from the current maximum of 12 months to 24 months through a statutory instrument with limited parliamentary oversight. 

On appeals from the magistrates' court, the report recommended that given the proposals to increase the complexity and seriousness of the magistrates' courts' caseload, the Government should consider delaying the introduction of any changes to the appeals process to enable an assessment of the impact of the reforms. The report called for further detail on the introduction and operation of audio recording across magistrates' courts including costs. It recommended any changes to magistrates' appeals should only be introduced once recording of all magistrates' court proceedings has been introduced and is proven to be operating effectively.

On legal aid, the report called on the Government to ‘clarify its position' on whether it intends to review criminal legal aid eligibility thresholds given the reforms and set out how it will ensure that defendants are not unfairly disadvantaged in accessing appeal rights. It recommended theGovernment amend the legal aid means test in the magistrates' court so that anyone charged with an either-way offence with the possibility of a sentence of 12 months or more in custody is subject to the same threshold that would apply if the case were tried in the Crown Court.

The report warned the allocation process for the Crown Court Bench Division could consume a significant amount of time and judicial resource, adding it is ‘troubling' that the provisions on allocation will lead to court time being consumed in considering where cases will be tried rather than deciding cases.

It called on the Government to consider whether relying on the three-year sentence threshold is the right approach to allocating ether way cases to judge only trial in the Crown Court and clarify whether allocation decisions in the Crown Court can be subject to judicial review. The provisions on judge only trials must only apply to cases yet to be arraigned on or after the day in which they are brought into force, it added. The Committee also recommended that cases involving child defendants should not be allocated to the Crown Court Bench Division.

On judge only trials, the report concluded the Government should have put forward a more concrete evidential basis for the time saving benefits of judge only trials alongside the bill. The predicted 20% of time saving of judge only trials compared to jury trials has played a significant role in the public debate on the bill, it noted. 

To ensure that their operation enhances the overall efficiency of the criminal courts, their introduction ‘must be carefully managed and avoid introducing unnecessary complexity that could undermine any time savings gained', the report concluded. The report recommended the Government must include a requirement in the bill that the MoJ reviews the first year of the operation of judge only trials in the Crown Court. A member's proposed alternative report shared the Committee's analysis with a different conclusion.

Chair of the Justice Committee and Labour MP Andy Slaughter said: “The Courts and Tribunals Bill represents the most significant change to the criminal courts in more than half a century and will fundamentally reshape how justice is delivered in England and Wales.

“The Committee recognises the urgency of the Crown Court crisis, with victims waiting years for justice as outstanding cases rise to 80,000, with listings for 2030. Yet this Bill was introduced without a formal response to Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson's Independent Review, without pre-legislative scrutiny by this Committee and with some potential unintended consequences.   

“Given the contested nature of the reforms, it is difficult to understand why a broader consensus within Parliament and beyond was not sought before the bill was introduced. These include: the removal of a defendant's right to elect a Crown Court trial, expanding magistrates' sentencing powers, reforming the appeals process and introducing judge only trials in the Crown Court. 

“As the Committee's report concludes, we are not convinced that the magistrates' court will be able to cope with the potential increase in caseload that the bill could generate. The Government's target of having 21,000 magistrates in post by 2029 is unrealistic. Ministers must demonstrate in more detail how the plan to expand capacity in the magistrates' court is deliverable. 

“The Committee shares the significant concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the bill, particularly in relation to race. It is ‘shocking' that only 1% of Crown Court judges are Black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. 

“The persistence of such stark underrepresentation demonstrates that efforts to date have failed to deliver meaningful change. The Government must take action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary and set out a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035.”