Justice reform must confront the reality of delay

We write as people who have experienced the criminal justice system, not as professionals or commentators, but as victims with direct experience of a system too often defined by delay. For us, this debate is not theoretical - it is about years of our lives spent waiting for justice to move forward. We recognise that change is needed. For those living through the system as it stands today, the current level of delay is not something that can be sustained. This moment offers an opportunity to improve how justice is delivered - and it must not be missed. Reform must be approached carefully, with appropriate safeguards, but it must move forward.

In recent weeks, the debate around reform of the criminal courts has been dominated by legal professionals and organisations discussing tradition, procedure and constitutional safeguards. Yet for those of us who have lived through the justice process, it is striking how often the human impact of delay is absent from that conversation. The debate can feel detached from the reality of what the system is meant to deliver: justice.

The Crown Court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, leaving many victims waiting years for their case to be heard. These are not abstract statistics. They mean repeated postponements, lives placed on hold, and the emotional toll of preparing again and again for a trial that may be cancelled at the last moment.

For victims, these delays are not simply an administrative inconvenience. They determine whether people can engage with the process at all.

During the recent Parliamentary debate on the 10th of March - attended by victims themselves - there were suggestions that those speaking about delay were being “weaponised” in support of reform. We do not accept that characterisation. For many of us, being heard at all has taken years. Seeing those voices reframed in this way is not only frustrating but also risks undermining the very experiences that should be informing this debate. Speaking out is not political positioning; it reflects the reality of what the system asks of those who go through it.

Recent commentary has highlighted differing views on how best to address the current crisis in the criminal justice system. This reflects the complexity - and at times, the divisiveness - of the debate.

What we offer here is the perspective of those experiencing the system first-hand, particularly those navigating years of delay before their case is heard. As survivors of the justice process, we ask - where are the direct voices of those currently navigating these delays? How are conclusions about what victims want being reached without engaging those living through the system as it operates today? Representation matters. But it is not the same as lived experience.

There is broad agreement that decades of underinvestment have contributed significantly to the current crisis. As Sir Brian Leveson made clear in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, sustained reductions in funding have left the system with fewer available courtrooms, a diminished workforce, and infrastructure struggling to meet modern demands. Investment in courts, people and technology is therefore essential.

However, the Leveson Review also makes clear that investment and efficiency measures alone will not be sufficient to bring waiting times down to manageable levels. Structural reform is now necessary.

Addressing the backlog will require multiple reforms working together: investment in infrastructure and personnel, improved case preparation, better use of digital systems, and a willingness to examine how court processes operate in practice - as highlighted in Rape Crisis’ report Living in Limbo.

Jury trials remain an important feature of the criminal justice system and a longstanding safeguard. But recognising their importance should not prevent careful consideration of whether limited and well-designed alternatives may also play a role in addressing the present crisis.

The question facing policymakers should therefore be whether the system, as it currently operates, delivers justice in practice - not simply whether tradition should be preserved at all costs. For some victims facing years of delay before their case is heard, the possibility of a judge-only trial may represent the difference between enduring an indefinite wait and achieving a timely resolution - the difference between beginning to rebuild their lives and remaining trapped in limbo. In a system facing delays measured in years, even modest reductions in waiting times can have a profound impact on the lives of victims and witnesses.

What must not be lost in this debate is the urgency of restoring a justice system capable of resolving cases within a timeframe that people can reasonably endure. Delays measured in years are not a neutral feature of the system. They shape whether victims remain engaged, whether cases proceed, and whether confidence in justice is sustained.

Victims are not rhetorical devices in arguments about tradition or reform. Our experiences demonstrate how the justice system operates in practice. This moment calls not for a binary choice between tradition and reform, but for a serious programme of modernisation - one that preserves fundamental safeguards while recognising that carefully considered structural changes are required. Any serious reforms aimed at reducing the current backlog and restoring timely justice have our backing. This includes proposals to allow limited judge-only trials as part of a wider package of measures. This moment also presents an opportunity that must not be missed: to strengthen judicial training, including on rape myths, attitudes and stereotypes, so that reform is not only structural, but felt in practice by those navigating the system. We are not outside this system - we are the ones who move through it. Our voices must shape what comes next.

Yours sincerely,

Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, Victim of rape

Charlotte Schreurs, Victim of coercive control and rape

Victoria Crawford, Victim of historical sexual abuse and grooming

Morwenna Loughman, Victim of rape and actual bodily harm

Katie Catt

Juliana Terlizzi, Victim of rape

Elaine, Victim of domestic abuse

Anonymous A, victim of sexual assault, harassment, stalking and criminal damage

Jane Crockett, Victim of domestic abuse, financial abuse and coercive control

Siffat Khan, Victim of domestic abuse

Alexia Cheneau, Victim of domestic abuse

Liv Nervo, Victim of reproductive coercion

Shirley, Victim of rape

Charlotte Wilkinson-Burnett, Victim of hate crime

Sarah, Victim of domestic abuse

Claire M, Victim of VAWG offences

Laura M, Victim of VAWG offences