Problem Register - #10 · Justice & Policing
Criminal courts and reoffending
Priority Score
- Scale3/5
- Severity4/5
- Cost of inaction5/5
- Tractability3/5
- Deliverability2/5
- Cross-partisan viability3/5
- Time-criticality5/5
Seven dimensions, each scored 1-5 and summed to a total out of 35. It is a triage and communication tool to compare problems - not a measure of truth. How it is derived is set out in The Method.
The problem
The criminal justice system in England and Wales is congested at both ends. The Crown Court backlog is at record levels, so victims and defendants wait years for trial; and the prison system is full while reoffending remains high - meaning the system is expensive and yet does not reliably produce either swift justice or rehabilitation.
The evidence
The Crown Court backlog has risen to record levels - above 70,000 outstanding cases through 2025, and rising quarter on quarter. The prison population reached 88,423 in August 2025 before emergency early-release measures reduced it; capacity reviews have repeatedly warned of running out of space. The great majority of offending is by people who have offended before, and a substantial share of prisoners are held in overcrowded conditions, which undermines rehabilitation.
Why the market fails
Justice is a foundational public good - there is no market substitute for courts, prosecution and prisons. Reducing reoffending is a coordination failure: it depends on housing, employment, health and addiction services aligning around a person leaving prison, and no single agency owns that. And it is a capital-horizon mismatch - rehabilitation costs money now and pays back later, so it is chronically squeezed.
Why it has persisted
Court capacity has been managed by short-term expedients - sitting-day limits, early release - rather than structural reform; prison places have not kept pace with sentence inflation; and rehabilitation, whose benefits are deferred and diffuse, loses funding to immediate pressures. Each emergency measure defers the underlying problem.
Who bears the cost
Victims and witnesses, who wait years for justice; defendants - including those later acquitted - held on remand; the public, through reoffending; and taxpayers, through one of the more expensive justice systems for the outcomes it produces.
Policy direction - outline only
Proposed mechanism
A funded, temporary surge in court capacity - sitting days, judiciary, the estate - to clear the backlog to a defined floor; expansion of evidence-based community sentences and rehabilitation; and properly coordinated "through the gate" housing, employment and health support for people leaving prison.
Must resolve
Which offences are suitable for non-custodial sentencing - a genuine value choice for public debate; the balance of investment between courts and rehabilitation; and how public protection is safeguarded.
Main risks
Loss of public confidence if non-custodial sentencing is seen as leniency; rehabilitation programmes that lack strong evidence; the backlog-surge funding ending before the structural fix lands.