The Ministry of Justice regularly publishes data on the average amount of time a case spends being heard and the average time taken for a case to reach completion following receipt at the Crown Court, as part of the Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

Data on the average amount of time a case spends being heard (in hours) is published in the “Crown Court average waiting and hearing time tool”, which can be filtered by trial type, including jury trial (01. Not guilty plea & 02. Trials total) and region.

Data on the average time taken for a case to reach completion (in days) following receipt at the Crown Court is published in the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court) which be filtered by Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB).

LCJB and region are the lowest available geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness and hearing time respectively. Our published metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level of geography to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases.

The Ministry of Justice retired use of the Crown Court Information data tool in 2024 because we rationalised outputs to avoid duplicating published measures, and moved towards other software solutions. Much of the data previously available in the tool and some additional metrics and breakdowns are published in detailed pivot tools and dashboards as set out below.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on the Crown Court caseload, plea, and trial effectiveness as part of the Accredited Official Statistics series Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly. This includes detailed data tools which provide breakdowns by available geography: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

For a dashboard view of the data, the department has published the Criminal Justice System Data Delivery Dashboard. This includes a range of performance metrics, including data on trials that do not proceed in the ‘Victim engagement’ section of the dashboard: Home - CJS Dashboard.

The Ministry of Justice does not model or estimate the number of future criminal trials that will be vacated due to judicial, courtroom or prosecutorial capacity restraints. However, the Ministry of Justice does hold information on past trial effectiveness, including vacated trials, which is published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly and can be accessed through the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts Tool’: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on the principal causes of trial adjournments. However, the Ministry does publish information on ineffective trials, which are trials that do not proceed on the scheduled trial date and require a new listing to be scheduled. This can be due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court.

Data on ineffective trials is published in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’, including the reasons for postponement and geographical breakdowns: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

Following from Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the Government is taking action to modernise the criminal court system, reduce the Crown Court caseload and deliver swifter justice for all.

The reforms introduced in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are intended to modernise and improve the system, to build a criminal courts system that is resilient, flexible, better equipped to manage the types and characteristics of today’s crimes and to enable a more proportionate allocation of resources across the criminal courts.

Alongside structural reform, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced several measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency – including rolling out case coordinators in every Crown Court centre, exploring the use of new AI technologies and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to set up the first ever National Listing Framework, which has now been published. Sir Brian’s conclusion was clear that structural reform, efficiencies, and investment are all critical to turn the tide on the Crown Court backlog and deliver swifter justice for all. That is why we are also delivering record financial investment, including uncapped Crown Court sitting days, additional funding for criminal legal aid, and £287 million to improve court buildings and digital infrastructure. We are considering the remainder of Sir Brian’s recommendations and will publish our full response in due course.

Decisions on charging for offences is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. This information is not held by the Department for Transport or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

The DVLA records the outcome of any relevant prosecution on the individual’s driving licence record, following notification by the courts after conviction.

An ineffective trial is one that does not go ahead on the scheduled trial date, so a further listing is required. This can be due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence, or the court.

The Ministry of Justice collates and publishes data on the volume of trials that were ineffective at the Crown Court including reasons in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’ on a quarterly basis. The latest period included covers January to March 2026. Data is available at a Crown Court level using the filter ‘crown_court_and_magistrates_lja’.Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

We asked Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to make recommendations to tackle inefficiencies within the criminal courts, including the causes of ineffective trials. We will publish our full response to Sir Brian’s review in due course, but we have already taken steps to deliver swifter justice through significant investment in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has already announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency and reduce ineffective trials.

This includes the introduction of case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant. We are also working with the Department for Transport and local authorities to expand the number of areas where prison transport vans can use bus lanes to reduce traffic delays - reducing wasted court time.

In any case, including those involving alleged sexual offences, where a defendant is found unfit to plead, the ordinary criminal trial does not proceed in the usual way. Instead, the jury determines whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged.

Where it is found the defendant did the act, the court may impose one of the statutory protective disposals available under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order, with or without a restriction order under the Mental Health At 1983, a supervision order, or an absolute discharge.

This framework is designed to protect the public while recognising the rights of a vulnerable defendant and the interests of those affected by the alleged offence.

The appropriate disposal is a matter for the independent judiciary, informed by the facts of the case and relevant expert evidence.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. We do, however, publish generalised data on trial effectiveness in the criminal courts.

In any case, including those involving alleged sexual offences, where a defendant is found unfit to plead, the ordinary criminal trial does not proceed in the usual way. Instead, the jury determines whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged.

Where it is found the defendant did the act, the court may impose one of the statutory protective disposals available under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order, with or without a restriction order under the Mental Health At 1983, a supervision order, or an absolute discharge.

This framework is designed to protect the public while recognising the rights of a vulnerable defendant and the interests of those affected by the alleged offence.

The appropriate disposal is a matter for the independent judiciary, informed by the facts of the case and relevant expert evidence.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. We do, however, publish generalised data on trial effectiveness in the criminal courts.

In any case, including those involving alleged sexual offences, where a defendant is found unfit to plead, the ordinary criminal trial does not proceed in the usual way. Instead, the jury determines whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged.

Where it is found the defendant did the act, the court may impose one of the statutory protective disposals available under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: a hospital order, with or without a restriction order under the Mental Health At 1983, a supervision order, or an absolute discharge.

This framework is designed to protect the public while recognising the rights of a vulnerable defendant and the interests of those affected by the alleged offence.

The appropriate disposal is a matter for the independent judiciary, informed by the facts of the case and relevant expert evidence.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. We do, however, publish generalised data on trial effectiveness in the criminal courts.

Our High Commission in New Delhi, along with our network of Deputy High Commissions, monitors these matters closely, and engages with civil society on a regular basis to support efforts to uphold human rights.

The Ministry of Justice publishes magistrates’ court data on prosecutions and resulting outcomes for rape offences by age of the defendant. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Although youth courts are not separately identifiable, the published statistics can be filtered to identify cases where the defendant was under the age of 18.

To preserve judicial independence, statutory responsibility for judicial training is held by the Lady Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and Chief Coroner. These responsibilities are fulfilled by the Judicial College.

To preside over serious sexual offence (SSO) cases in the Crown or Youth Court, judges must hold the appropriate authorisation, following specific SSO induction and continuation training. Crown Court judges must complete the relevant continuation seminar every three years while Youth Court judges must complete it every two years.

SSO training focuses on enabling judges to handle all aspects of these cases with sensitivity and confidence, equipped with knowledge of current law and practice, and to ensure the trial and sentencing process is fair and appropriate to the needs of all parties and witnesses. The seminars have vulnerability, special measures and trauma-informed practice at their core. This training is supplemented by a wide range of Judicial College resources, such as the Crown Court Compendium, which provides guidance for judges on directing the jury in Crown Court trials and when sentencing. I observed this training on a recent visit to the Judicial College. The Independent Advisor to the Government on issues related to serious sexual offences has also observed the training and has attested to its quality.

Judges and magistrates sitting in the family and criminal jurisdictions receive mandatory domestic abuse training. The training reflects the wide nature of domestic abuse including coercive and controlling behaviour. The Judicial College has recently published a summary of the judicial training on domestic abuse: Judicial education in domestic abuse 2026 to 2027.

The Government has no role in the process for how judges are selected to hear trials. Under section 7(2)(c) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary and the allocation of work within courts. This position is consistent with the principle of judicial independence.

Judicial decisions about which judge hears a case, including those involving the most serious offences, are made having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case, the experience and authorisation of the judge, and the need to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice. A judge’s personal characteristics are not a factor as all judges uphold the rule of law, deciding cases solely on the legal and factual merits, treating all parties impartially and in the interests of justice.

To ensure all court users are treated fairly, judges receive training in their induction and throughout their career on structured decision-making, fair treatment of court users and addressing unconscious bias. All judicial office holders have also access to the Equal Treatment Bench Book which aims to raise awareness of the different needs of court users and to support effective communication and participation for all parties in court.

To ensure that victims can access support throughout their criminal justice journey, this government has committed £550 million for victim support services over the next three years. The Ministry of Justice funded Witness Service continues to provide on-the-day emotional and practical support to victims who are witnesses. This may include providing information about the court and its processes, facilitating any explanations around any delays and accompanying the witness into the court room when they give evidence. Independent Sexual Violence Advisors can also provide wider emotional and practical support to victims of sexual violence.

Assaults on emergency workers are a serious matter. Prosecution decisions are for the independent Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider, and it would be inappropriate for a Minister to discuss this with the CPS. The evidential and public interest tests (termed the ‘two-stage’ test) are set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and consideration of how they are applied is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Where a jury has been unable to reach a verdict or has been discharged, the prosecution will apply the two-stage test set out in the Code when deciding whether or not to proceed to a retrial. Prosecutors are expected to be fair and objective when making decisions and should only proceed with a prosecution if the two-stage test has been met.

I refer the Rt Hon. Member to the answers I gave on 18 June 2026 to Questions 9355, 9356 and 9357.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on trial effectiveness in the Criminal Court Statistics release in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’. This tool contains data on both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court and covers the period 2010 to 2025: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

An ineffective trial is one which does not go ahead on the scheduled trial start date and where a further listing is required. Data collection is crucial to understanding the key drivers of ineffective trials in order to address the underlying causes, as they can be caused by a wide range of factors, including action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence, or the court.

We asked Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to make recommendations to tackle inefficiencies within the criminal courts. We are taking steps to deliver swifter justice with significant financial investment in the system – in record sitting days, new or refurbished court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has already announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency and reduce the number of ineffective trials. This includes the introduction of case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant. We are also working with the Department for Transport and local authorities to expand the number of areas where prison transport vans can use bus lanes to reduce traffic delays - reducing wasted court time.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on trial effectiveness in the Criminal Court Statistics release in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’. This tool contains data on both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court and covers the period 2010 to 2025: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

An ineffective trial is one which does not go ahead on the scheduled trial start date and where a further listing is required. Data collection is crucial to understanding the key drivers of ineffective trials in order to address the underlying causes, as they can be caused by a wide range of factors, including action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence, or the court.

We asked Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to make recommendations to tackle inefficiencies within the criminal courts. We are taking steps to deliver swifter justice with significant financial investment in the system – in record sitting days, new or refurbished court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has already announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency and reduce the number of ineffective trials. This includes the introduction of case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant. We are also working with the Department for Transport and local authorities to expand the number of areas where prison transport vans can use bus lanes to reduce traffic delays - reducing wasted court time.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on trial effectiveness in the Criminal Court Statistics release in the ‘Trial effectiveness at the criminal courts tool’. This tool contains data on both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court and covers the period 2010 to 2025: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

An ineffective trial is one which does not go ahead on the scheduled trial start date and where a further listing is required. Data collection is crucial to understanding the key drivers of ineffective trials in order to address the underlying causes, as they can be caused by a wide range of factors, including action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence, or the court.

We asked Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to make recommendations to tackle inefficiencies within the criminal courts. We are taking steps to deliver swifter justice with significant financial investment in the system – in record sitting days, new or refurbished court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister has already announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency and reduce the number of ineffective trials. This includes the introduction of case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant. We are also working with the Department for Transport and local authorities to expand the number of areas where prison transport vans can use bus lanes to reduce traffic delays - reducing wasted court time.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) has a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure all our users are treated fairly and that we do not discriminate against people with protected characteristics.

HMCTS will provide reasonable adjustments for court and tribunal users with disabilities. Court and tribunal users are encouraged to get in touch with HMCTS to discuss any particular adjustments they may need. HMCTS staff will sensitively ask those needing reasonable adjustments what support they require in order to be able to provide reasonable adjustments and will aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs.

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by Judicial College (https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/diversity/equal-treatment-bench-book/) contains guidance on fair treatment, equality issues and general information on disability issues and religion for judges.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent courts. In England and Wales, the terrorist connection aggravating factor applies where an offence is not itself a terrorism offence but takes place in the course of an act of terrorism or is committed for the purposes of terrorism, as defined at section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The determination of such an aggravating factor is a matter for the sentencing judge, not the jury. The existence of aggravating factors is a well-established principle in sentencing and their application does not prejudice the fairness of a trial.

Parliament has provided courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for sentencing policy, and the Secretary of State for Justice receives advice on such matters as appropriate. The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold data on the number of sentences aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.