We are told by the courts service managers that asking the government to meet the shortfall is not an option. Why not?

The shortcomings of the courts service have provided a rich seam of material for Gazette correspondents in recent weeks. ‘You think that’s bad, wait till you hear this,’ has been a common refrain. Phones ringing off the hook, poorly drafted documents, inadequately trained staff and interminable delays – the charge sheet is a long one.

Now a leaked letter from Lord Justice Leveson suggests that the situation may be about to get a whole lot worse. The service is grappling with a projected budget shortfall of £90m over the next three years, largely caused by a steep fall in fee income resulting from fewer tax and child protection cases. ‘No part of the [courts service] will be protected from having to find savings,’ says a paper for senior managers enclosed with Leveson’s letter.

Since a large part of the courts service’s costs are fixed, the consequences for staffing levels and sitting days are likely to be severe. Yet we are told that courts service managers insist that asking the government to meet the shortfall is not an option.

Why is it not an option? After all, this is a crisis of the government’s making. We note that Leveson’s letter came to light in a week which saw the Treasury find £1bn for a timid and almost certainly vain package of measures aimed at shoring up the housing market.

Perhaps there are votes in gesture politics, but not in justice.