U.K., Oct. 8 -- UK Parliament issued the following news:
Ministers must demonstrate the plan to expand capacity in the magistrates’ court is deliverable and meets demand, the Justice Committee has warned, as it publishes the Government response to its legislative scrutiny report on the flagship court reforms.
Read the Government response
Further clarity is needed in relation to legal aid to address concerns that more Defendants face representing themselves. Ministers are also being asked to look again at factors the Magistrates’ Court take into consideration when deciding whether or not a case should be heard by a jury.
The Committee welcomed the Government’s announcement that it had listened to concerns about reforms to jury trials proposed in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the remaining stages of which are due to be debated in the Commons on Tuesday 13 October. The Committee published a detailed critique of the Bill in June following extensive analysis.
On judge only trials, the Committee’s 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.
In its response published today (8 October), the Government said: “Since the Committee published its report, the Government has considered the evidence it presented, alongside representations from stakeholders and parliamentarians across both Houses. The Government has announced its intention to bring forward an amendment at Commons Report stage to remove the Bench Division provisions from the Courts and Tribunals Bill. This reflects our belief that parliamentary scrutiny should have a meaningful impact on legislation. Where concerns are raised, it is right that Government listens and responds.”
The Committee’s report warned MPs were ‘not convinced’ the magistrates’ court will be able to cope with the potential increase in caseload the reforms could generate adding it required ‘significant additional support’.
MPs described the target of reaching 21,000 magistrates by 2029 as ‘unrealistic’, cautioning, 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. It was also recommended that the Government put forward a plan to significantly increase the number of salaried district judges in the magistrates’ court.
In its response, the MoJ insisted: “We are currently on track to meet the target to reach 21,000 magistrates in place by 2028-29, with 655 magistrate appointments between April and June 2026, compared with 384 during the same period in 2025 and 215 in 2024.”
It added: “Recruitment plans are in place to increase judicial capacity in the Magistrates’ Court, including for salaried District Judges (MC)…We have plans to recruit at least 100 trainee legal advisers each year for the next three years. In 2025/26 we exceeded that target by recruiting 108 new legal advisers and we are ahead of our target this year…The retention of qualified legal advisers remains a risk to increasing magistrates’ courts capacity. We have taken a number of steps to mitigate this risk.”
The Committee’s report raised concerns that the proposed increase of magistrates’ court sentencing powers would result in more defendants facing criminal charges without legal representation. The Committee asked the Government to clarify how legal aid eligibility in the magistrates’ court will be changed before this Bill becomes law.
In response, the Government said it “will shortly be setting out our response to Lord Leveson’s report including his recommendation on increasing the upper and lower thresholds in the magistrate’s court”. They added “Under the current financial eligibility rules, the Government remains confident that the majority of defendants charged with either way offences will be eligible for legal aid at the magistrates' court”.
On the removal of a defendant’s right to elect Crown Court trial, the Committee warned that the lack of flexibility in the allocation process could impact on the fairness of the system. In response the Government indicated that the current allocation process in the magistrates’ court is sufficiently flexible and does not need to change.
Additionally, the Government said it accepted the Committee’s recommendation that “audio recording must be in place and operational across all magistrates’ courts before the appeals measures are commenced”.
On judicial diversity, 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.
In its response, the Government said: “We agree with the Justice Select Committee’s conclusion that there needs to be progress on achieving a representative judiciary, and that the lack of improvement in the representation of Black judges is particularly stark…We share the Committee's ambition for a magistracy that better reflects the communities it serves and accept that further progress is needed, particularly in relation to certain underrepresented groups.”
Chair's comment
Chair of the Justice Committee and Labour MP Catherine Atkinson said: “It is welcome that the Government has listened to the concerns and strength of feeling about reforms to jury trials and responded.
“The measures contained in the Courts and Tribunals Bill will reshape criminal justice in England and Wales.
“Ministers must demonstrate in more detail how the proposal to expand capacity in the magistrates’ court is deliverable. We are seeing backlogs in the magistrates’ courts already rising even before reforms are implemented. A clear plan to ensure there is capacity to meet increased demand is vital.
“We are also concerned by the lack of clarity in the Government’s response on how legal aid thresholds will be changed to ensure that the magistrates’ court does not see a significant increase in the number of unrepresented defendants.
“The Government should look again at the factors considered by Magistrates’ Courts in deciding whether cases should be sent to the Crown Court to be heard by a Jury rather than staying in the Magistrates’ Courts. There are some straightforward cases where sentence is likely to be less than two years’ custody, but where a jury trial in the Crown Court would still be the most appropriate mode of trial. The allocation guidelines do not allow for this.”
Further information
Inquiry: Courts and Tribunals Bill
Justice Committee homepage
About Parliament: Select committees
Visiting Parliament: Watch committees
Image: MoJ
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
