Crown court case listed for 2029 as backlog mounts

A barrister has said his client will end up being on bail for six years after his Crown court trial was delayed until 2029. The original four-day trial for a drug supply matter was due to commence earlier this month but was removed from the listing due to a lack of court availability.

The trial has now been rescheduled for July 2029 for a defendant who was arrested in 2023.

Mark Robinson, criminal barrister at Garden Court Chambers, said the UK was not able to comply with its obligations under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individuals have a right to a fair trial and a public hearing ‘within a reasonable time’. He added: ‘Four years to wait for a trial is neither fair or reasonable, it is outrageous and unacceptable.’

Robinson said the problem this month had been compounded by the summer holidays restricting court time, but there was also a more fundamental issue with how cases are prioritised.

Currently, those defendants on remand must have their cases heard within six months, but with high numbers of people in this position, those who have been released on bail are pushed further back in the queue.

‘This is of the government’s own making; stop remanding people save for the most serious cases of a violent and sexual nature and use electronically monitored tags, GPS tracking and increase the curfew hours for those that pose the most significant risk,’ said Robinson. ‘This would obviously reduce the prison population too, but we cannot go on like we are.’

The barrister said that removing the right to elect to be tried in the Crown court for offences carrying a maximum of two years – as recommended last month by Sir Brian Leveson's report on criminal justice – was not the solution. Leveson proposed creating a new division of the Crown court in which a judge and two magistrates would hear either way offences allocated to it by a judge.

Robinson added: ‘More judges, more recorders, more sitting days and fast track the process for those suitably qualified to become judges is the only sensible solution, not doing away with a fundamental right to be tried before your peers.’