Invest in Criminal Justice System to Tackle Backlogs
Liberal Democrat · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Liberal Democrat’s policy “Invest in Criminal Justice System to Tackle Backlogs” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Public finances & the next generation — Hurts
minor · low confidence
The policy commits to a 'properly funded strategy' but names no funding source, cost, or fiscal instrument — meaning it is an unfunded spending pledge on current evidence. The main caveat is that the actual fiscal cost is unknown and could range from modest to substantial depending on what 'properly funded' turns out to mean.
The evidence
- The policy commits to a 'properly funded strategy' to halve offence-to-sentencing times but names no specific budget, funding source, or fiscal mechanism. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “implementing a properly funded strategy across the criminal justice system to achieve it”
- The Ministry of Justice's total departmental budget for 2025–26 is already around £13.5 billion, approximately one-third higher in real terms than 2019–20, with capital investment more than trebling over that period. — ifs.org.uk (institutional) — “The Ministry of Justice's total departmental budget for 2025–26 is set to be around £13.5 billion, approximately one-third higher in real terms than in 2019–20 (£10.1 billion)”
- Despite large increases in sitting days (up 29% between 2019 and 2024), case disposals rose by only 17%, and the backlog continued to grow, suggesting very substantial additional resource would be needed to hit the halving target. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “While the number of sitting days increased by 29% between 2019 and 2024, case disposals only rose by 17%”
- Without structural changes, the Crown Court backlog could reach 100,000 by 2028 and 123,000 by March 2030, implying the scale of intervention required to halve processing times is large. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “the Crown Court backlog could reach 100,000 by 2028 and 123,000 by the end of March 2030 under a central demand scenario”
- The IFS emphasises that effective use of resources and productivity improvements — not just funding increases — are critical, and that poor productivity has been a major factor in backlog growth. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “poor productivity was a major factor, more so than just a lack of funding”
Biggest unknown: What the 'properly funded strategy' actually costs and how it is financed — borrowing, reallocation, or new revenue — is entirely unspecified, which is the only thing that would determine whether this worsens or is fiscally neutral.
Our reading: O12 is about whether public spending is funded or borrowed and whether the debt path is sustainable. This policy commits to a 'properly funded strategy' to halve offence-to-sentencing times across the entire criminal justice system — an ambitious target. The problem is that 'properly funded' is a soft verb with no accompanying costing, no identified revenue source, and no OBR or IFS-verified fiscal envelope. Under the evidence-bound rules, an uncosted spending commitment defaults to fiscally neutral at best and a worsener at worst, because absent a stated funding mechanism the presumption is that costs add to public expenditure without a matched offset. The measurable baseline shows MoJ spending has already risen ~33% in real terms since 2019–20 and the backlog has still grown, meaning the marginal cost of hitting the halving target is likely non-trivial — the gap between a 29% rise in sitting days and only a 17% rise in disposals signals deep structural costs. The IFS evidence confirms that funding alone has not driven productivity, so the 'properly funded' commitment would need to be very large, and potentially supplemented by structural reform, to move the dial. The direction is 'worsens' because an unspecified spending commitment adds to the public expenditure envelope without a named funding source — symmetrically the same verdict that would apply to an unfunded tax cut. The magnitude is 'minor' because (a) the MoJ budget, while growing, is a small share of total DEL, and (b) productivity gains (if achieved) could reduce the marginal cost; confidence is low precisely because no costing exists. If the policy were shown to be fully funded from reallocation or new revenue, the verdict would move to negligible for O12.
Crime, justice & national security — Helps
moderate · low confidence
This policy targets a real and serious problem — court backlogs that leave victims waiting years for justice — with a funded strategy and a concrete halving target. But the evidence shows that even large funding increases since 2019 have failed to reduce the backlog, so the target is ambitious and uncertain.
The evidence
- The policy commits to halving the time from offence to sentencing for all criminals and implementing a properly funded strategy across the criminal justice system. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Setting a clear target of halving the time from offence to sentencing for all criminals, and implementing a properly funded strategy across the criminal justice system to achieve it.”
- Crown Court median time from charge to completion was 179 days in June 2025, significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels. — gov.uk (media) — “the median time from charge to completion was 179 days in June 2025, a 2% increase from the previous year and significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels”
- Victims currently wait over 250 days for justice on average, with rape cases taking 423 days. — theguardian.com (media) — “victims currently wait over 250 days for justice on average, with rape cases taking a "staggering" 423 days”
- Magistrates' courts had 379,437 outstanding cases between October and December 2025. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “Magistrates' courts also face substantial backlogs, with 379,437 outstanding cases between October and December 2025”
- The Crown Court backlog continued to grow even as sitting days increased by 29% between 2019 and 2024. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “The backlog in the Crown Court continued to grow even with considerable increases in court resources and sitting days”
- While sitting days rose 29%, case disposals only rose 17%, indicating a productivity gap. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “While the number of sitting days increased by 29% between 2019 and 2024, case disposals only rose by 17%”
- Without structural changes, the Crown Court backlog could reach 100,000 by 2028 and 123,000 by March 2030. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “the Crown Court backlog could reach 100,000 by 2028 and 123,000 by the end of March 2030 under a central demand scenario”
- The Justice Secretary indicated it would take a decade for reforms to reduce the backlog to pre-Covid levels. — theguardian.com (media) — “it would take a decade for reforms to reduce the backlog to pre-Covid levels”
- The Public Accounts Committee expressed concern the MoJ was 'tinkering at the edges' of a severely strained system and was unprepared for rising demand. — research.senedd.wales (media) — “the MoJ was "tinkering at the edges" of a severely strained system and was unprepared for rising demand”
- Poor productivity was identified as a major factor in the backlog, more so than just a lack of funding. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “poor productivity was a major factor, more so than just a lack of funding”
- Extended waiting times erode public confidence in the justice system and deny swift justice. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “The extended waiting times erode public confidence in the justice system and deny swift justice to those involved”
- Smarter scheduling could reduce delays by up to 65% without needing additional judges. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “smarter scheduling and reallocating judicial time between early and later stages of cases could reduce delays by up to 65% without needing additional judges”
Biggest unknown: Whether additional investment can beat the structural constraints (staff shortages, rising case complexity, productivity gaps) that have defeated previous funding increases — the Justice Secretary herself said reforms will take a decade to reach pre-Covid levels.
Our reading: The O5 fundamental cares about whether justice actually works — charge/conviction times, court backlogs, and victims receiving timely resolution are direct indicators. The policy directly targets these with a specific, measurable target (halving offence-to-sentencing time) and a commitment to proper funding. The problem it addresses is real and severe: median Crown Court completion time is 179 days from charge alone, victims wait over 250 days on average, and the backlog is projected to grow to over 100,000 without intervention. These delays damage the quality of justice — evidence degrades, victims disengage, and public confidence falls. A policy that credibly addresses this would clearly improve O5. The direction is therefore 'improves' in principle. However, the magnitude and confidence are constrained by strong evidence that the system has already received substantial funding increases (MoJ budget up one-third in real terms since 2019-20, sitting days up 29%) and yet the backlog has continued to grow. The IFS and others point to productivity, not just funding, as the primary constraint. The Justice Secretary herself projects a decade to reach pre-Covid levels. This means the policy's stated target — halving offence-to-sentencing times — faces structural headwinds that funding alone will not resolve. Nevertheless, a committed, properly funded, cross-system strategy with a clear target is categorically more likely to improve matters than the status quo of projected continued deterioration. The direction is 'improves', but magnitude is moderate rather than major (given delivery risks and the decade-long horizon implied by the government's own assessment), and confidence is low because the evidence strongly suggests existing investment has not bent the curve. The time horizon is long-term.