Authored By: Rooshan Saeed
The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is a cornerstone of the justice systems around the world. It emphasises that delays in the justice system undermine its fundamental purpose as justice is meant to be timely, ensuring that rights are protected and wrongs are redressed without undue delay.
The UK’s legal system is grappling with a crisis of delays in both civil and criminal courts. These delays have far-reaching consequences for individuals, businesses, and society at large. From hindering access to timely justice to exacerbating emotional and financial strains on litigants, the issue undermines public confidence in the legal system.
This article explores the causes and impacts of these delays, examines proposals for reform, and highlights how advanced technology and artificial intelligence (AI) could play a transformative role in tackling this pressing problem.
The Extent of Delays in UK Courts
Civil Courts
The delays in the civil court system affect disputes ranging from family law cases to commercial litigation. In 2023, the average time for a small claims case to reach trial exceeded 50 weeks, while multi-track claims often faced even longer timelines.[1]
One of the main reasons for the delay is the chronic underfunding of the judicial system which has resulted in insufficient numbers of judges, court staff, and physical courtrooms, significantly hindering the ability to process cases efficiently. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these backlogs, with virtual hearings unable to fully substitute for in-person proceedings in complex cases. Lengthy procedural requirements and inefficiencies in case management further impact the speedy resolution of disputes.
Additionally, the rise in litigants in person (LiPs), often driven by cuts to legal aid, has slowed proceedings as judges must provide additional guidance to unrepresented parties. While legal aid is intended to ensure that individuals with limited financial resources can access legal representation and advice, individuals must prove they meet both the means and the merits test to be eligible for legal aid. Even then, legal aid is only available for the cases that are deemed sufficiently serious, such as those involving housing disputes, domestic abuse, or child welfare. As such, more and more people are having to represent themselves as only funding is available and they are unable to afford privately paid legal representation. The effect of this was highlighted in a Law Society Press Release on delays in family courts, which stated that “in most cases, LiPs require more time and support from the court, which is likely to slow down the system and increase overall costs.”[2]
The impact on civil cases
Delays in civil cases often translate to prolonged financial and emotional distress. For example, in family law, delays in resolving custody disputes can exacerbate tensions between parties and negatively affect children’s well-being. The new Chair of the Bar of England and Wales, Barbara Mills KC, has voiced her concerns about the impact of lack of legal aid on family law cases. During her inaugural address she stated that “lack of access to legal advice, whether through legal aid or otherwise, has swollen to the point at which, at times, neither party is represented in as many as 40% of family dispute cases… This results in serious dis-function in our justice system – cost, delay, injustice, fear, uncertainty and lives put on hold are the bitter fruits of under-investment.”[3]
The situation is further complicated by cuts to legal aid. Since the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), legal aid for housing cases has fallen significantly leaving many tenants unable to secure timely advice or representation in eviction cases. According to the Law Society’s analysis, as of October 2023, 43.6% of the population in England and Wales reside in areas without a housing legal aid provider in their local authority.[4] This represents an increase of approximately 6.6% since 2019. Additionally, only 33.3% of the population have access to more than one provider in their local area. These shortages have led to overburdened services.[5] Further, following LASPO, legal help in relation to housing benefits challenges is no longer funded by legal aid. “This has made it much more difficult for people to access the early specialist help they need. Yet, early advice on housing benefits problems can resolve rent arrears, making it less likely that problems will escalate and lead to possession proceedings and evictions.”[6]
Further, many of those who practice housing law, have been raising their concerns about the delays in bailiffs’ evictions in possession cases in the county courts. Practitioners have highlighted that the average waiting time for bailiff-led evictions has risen to over 24.5 weeks on average, leaving landlords unable to regain possession of their properties and incurring significant financial losses.[7]As county court bailiffs face extensive backlogs, some tenants remain in properties for several months after a possession order is granted. The situation is worse where there are rent arrears. On the other hand, these delays can also lead to prolonged uncertainty and stress for tenants who are aware of pending evictions but are unable to secure alternative housing promptly.
Criminal Courts
The criminal justice system faces equally severe delays, with Crown Court cases in 2023 taking an average of 266 days from charge to completion, a figure well beyond acceptable standards.[8] Lack of judges and prosecutors due to insufficient judicial resources continues to impede the system’s ability to address growing caseloads. Old court buildings, outdated technology, and logistical challenges further exacerbate delays in criminal proceedings. The extent of the delays is such that the updated figures published by the Ministry of Justice show that the number of criminal cases waiting to be dealt with by crown courts in England and Wales was 73,105 at the end of September 2024.[9] “The caseload increased 3% on the previous quarter (71,042 cases), 10% on the previous year (66,426 cases) and has nearly doubled since the end of 2019 (38,016 cases), before the coronavirus pandemic.” [10]
Similarly, cuts to legal aid have left many defendants unable to access timely legal representation, leading to repeated adjournments. Criminal legal aid is similarly means-tested, though exceptions exist for those under 18 or on certain benefits. Further, representation is provided only if the case is serious enough to warrant imprisonment or if it is in the interest of justice. However, the Ministry of Justice’s data reveals a 30% decrease in criminal legal aid expenditure since 2010.[11] As a result, many defendants have been forced to represent themselves, creating procedural inefficiencies and further delays.
The impact on criminal cases
In criminal proceedings, delays undermine both the rights of defendants and the interests of victims. Defendants on remand often spend extended periods in custody awaiting trial, sometimes longer than the sentence they might ultimately receive if convicted.
For victims, delays exacerbate trauma and erode trust in the justice system. A report by Rape Crisis England & Wales highlights that victims and survivors of rape and other serious sexual offences are waiting the longest for their cases to reach court, with an average wait of 839 days from report to completion in court.[12] These delays have immense impacts on their mental health and well-being, causing re-traumatization and, in some cases, leading survivors to withdraw from the criminal justice process entirely.[13] Additionally, a report by Victim Support reveals that the court process is re-traumatizing victim-survivors of sexual violence, profoundly damaging their mental health, with many regretting that they ever reported the crime to the police. The report includes case studies, such as that of Kate, a victim of sexual assault who waited three years and experienced three adjournments before her case eventually came to trial in 2023.[14] These prolonged delays undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law and erode public confidence in justice.
Finally, the lack of legal aid for individuals facing criminal trials leaves defendants at a severe disadvantage, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and unfair sentencing. Without representation, they struggle to navigate complex legal systems, present mitigating factors, or challenge evidence effectively, often resulting in harsher outcomes. Vulnerable groups, including those with mental health issues or socio-economic disadvantages, are disproportionately impacted, exacerbating inequality.
Proposals to Reform the Civil and Criminal Court System
Many experts argue that addressing delays requires significant investment in judicial resources. This includes appointing more judges, hiring additional court staff, and improving infrastructure to handle growing caseloads efficiently. Simplifying procedural rules and introducing stricter case management protocols could reduce unnecessary delays.
Further, enhancing access to legal aid can reduce the number of LiPs and save court time. Encouraging ADR mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration can alleviate pressure on the courts by resolving disputes outside the judicial system. Government incentives to adopt ADR, especially in family and commercial cases, could significantly reduce backlogs.
It is also argued that technology and AI have the potential to revolutionise court operations and significantly reduce delays. A fully integrated digital system would allow litigants, lawyers, and judges to access case documents and updates in real-time, reducing delays caused by lost or misplaced files. The use of virtual hearing was one example during the pandemic which allowed hearings to proceed without access to a physical court room building. While they are not suitable for all cases, expanding their use for procedural hearings or less contentious matters can save time and reduce logistical challenges. Remote testimony, particularly in criminal cases, can also protect vulnerable witnesses and minimise trial delays.
AI can also assist in analysing vast quantities of evidence, particularly in cases involving digital data. For example, AI algorithms can identify patterns in financial transactions or flag relevant communications in large datasets. This not only accelerates the discovery process but also reduces the burden on legal professionals. In the United States, tools like Relativity’s AI-powered e-discovery platform have revolutionised evidence review in large-scale litigation.[15]
AI tools can also use historical data to predict case outcomes or timelines, helping parties make informed decisions about settlements or trial strategies. This predictive capability can reduce unnecessary litigation and encourage earlier resolution of disputes.
Further, Natural language processing (NLP) tools can automate tasks such as reviewing contracts, drafting pleadings, or generating court orders. By reducing reliance on manual labour for routine tasks, these technologies free up legal professionals to focus on substantive issues. Canada’s legal sector has widely adopted tools like Kira Systems to automate document review, improving efficiency in both litigation and transactional work. For instance, law firms utilising Kira have reported time savings of 20–40% for first-time users and up to 90% for those with more experience.[16]
Finally, AI-powered scheduling tools can optimise court calendars by analysing the availability of judges, lawyers, and courtrooms, ensuring that cases are heard as efficiently as possible. Brazil’s “Electronic Judicial Process” system uses AI to manage scheduling and case allocation, significantly reducing wait times in its overburdened judiciary. For instance, the Federal Supreme Court utilizes an AI system named “Victor” to assist in analysing and classifying cases, thereby expediting judicial workflows.[17]
Singapore – a case study
The Singapore Courts have adopted new initiatives which have streamlined procedures through an integrated case management system, enabling faster adjudication by mandating pre-trial conferences and clear timelines for submissions. One such initiative is a partnership with Harvey, a U.S.-based artificial intelligence legal start-up, to create a pilot program that assists self-represented individuals in preparing for small claims cases.
The judiciary in Singapore has also introduced Motor Accident Claims Online (MACO) which is an online simulator that allows individuals to assess liability and potential compensation for personal injuries resulting from motor accidents. This tool aids in informed decision-making regarding claims. Further, there is a Divorce eService which a portal designed to facilitate the preparation and filing of court documents for simplified divorce proceedings, streamlining the process for users.[18]
Furthermore, initiatives such as Family Justice @ Heartlands have been introduced. These are aimed at enhancing access to justice through community engagement, informing the public about their rights and responsibilities under family law.[19] Finally, the courts have developed detailed guides and videos to assist individuals in understanding legal processes, available on their official website.
As well as implementing the initiatives, to ensure responsible AI usage, the Singapore judiciary has issued guidelines for court users. Effective from October 1, 2024, these guidelines emphasise the importance of accuracy, confidentiality, and compliance with legal standards when utilising generative AI tools in court proceedings.[20]
While these AI-driven initiatives are promising, specific data on their impact in reducing court delays is not yet available. The ongoing implementation and evaluation of AI tools are expected to provide insights into their effectiveness in expediting legal processes and alleviating the judiciary’s workload. Overall, Singapore’s adoption of AI in its courts reflects a commitment to innovation aimed at improving the efficiency and accessibility of its legal system.
Challenges in Implementing Technology and AI
Despite its potential, integrating advanced technology into the court system presents several challenges. Implementing new systems requires substantial upfront investment, which may be challenging given current budget constraints. Further, judges, lawyers, and court staff must be trained to use new tools effectively, and resistance to change can hinder the integration of AI. Due attention should be given to the importance of understanding the implications of AI in legal decision-making and the need for a regulatory framework to ensure its ethical use.
Handling sensitive legal data with AI also raises questions about data protection, cybersecurity, and the risk of algorithmic bias. There have been reported instances where the risk of algorithmic bias has been highlighted. For instance, in 2018, Amazon scrapped its AI hiring tool after discovering that it was biased against women. Further, in 2019, multiple users reported that the Apple offered significantly lower credit limits to women compared to men, even when they had similar credit profiles. This suggested potential gender bias in the credit evaluation algorithm.
Finally, ensuring that technological reforms do not disadvantage those without access to digital resources is essential for maintaining fairness.
Conclusion
Delays in the UK’s civil and criminal courts pose a significant threat to the delivery of justice. While increasing resources and streamlining procedures are vital, technological innovations offer a unique opportunity to transform the system. AI and other advanced tools can improve efficiency, enhance case management, and reduce backlogs, ensuring that justice is delivered promptly and equitably.
To succeed, however, reforms must be holistic, combining investment in infrastructure with a commitment to training, transparency, and accessibility. By embracing innovation while addressing practical and ethical challenges, the UK can modernise its legal system and restore public confidence in its ability to deliver timely justice.
[1] Ministry of Justice, “Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023” (GOV.UK, December 7, 2023) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2023/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2023> accessed January 12, 2025
[2] “Family Court System Still Facing Significant Backlogs and Delays” (The Law Society) <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/Family%20court%20system%20still%20facing%20significant%20backlogs%20and%20delays> accessed January 12, 2025
[3] “New Bar Chair Barbara Mills KC Highlights Family Law, Wellbeing, Inclusion, and Resourcing for Justice in Inaugural Address” <https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/new-bar-chair-barbara-mills-kc-highlights-family-law-wellbeing-inclusion-and-resourcing-for-justice-in-inaugural-address.html> accessed January 12, 2025
[4] “Housing – Legal Aid Deserts” (The Law Society) <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/campaigns/civil-justice/legal-aid-deserts/housing> accessed January 12, 2025
[5] ibid.
[6] “United Kingdom: Cuts That Hurt: The Impact of Legal Aid Cuts in England on Access to Justice” (Amnesty International, October 10, 2016) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur45/4936/2016/en/> accessed January 12, 2025
[7] “Bailiff Shortages Leave Landlords Facing Severe Delays as Section 21 Ban Approaches” (Property Industry Eye, November 18, 2024) <https://propertyindustryeye.com/bailiff-shortages-leave-landlords-facing-years-long-delays-as-section-21-ban-approaches/> accessed January 12, 2025
[8] Ministry of Justice, “Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2023” (GOV.UK, December 14, 2023) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2023?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed January 12, 2025
[9] Ministry of Justice, “Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2024” (GOV.UK, December 12, 2024) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2024/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2024> accessed January 12, 2025
[10] ‘Crown Court Backlog in England and Wales Hits New Record High’ (The Independent, 12 December 2024) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wales-moj-government-england-angela-eagle-b2663186.html> accessed 12 January 2025
[11] Pyper D and others, “Spending of the Ministry of Justice on Legal Aid” (House of Commons Library, October 21, 2020) <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0115/> accessed January 12, 2025
[12] “New Report Reveals the Devastating Impact of the Crown Court Crisis on Sexual Violence Survivors” (Rape Crisis England & Wales) <https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/new-report-reveals-the-devastating-impact-of-the-crown-court-crisis-on-sexual-violence-survivors/> accessed January 12, 2025
[13] ibid.
[14] Anna, “Court Process Re-Traumatising Victim-Survivors of Sexual Violence, New Report Reveals” (Victim Support, October 10, 2024) <https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/court-process-re-traumatising-victim-survivors-of-sexual-violence-new-report-reveals/> accessed January 12, 2025
[15] “Relativity Announces aiR for Review, Its Generative AI Review Product, Plus Other AI Products for E-Discovery and Data Management” (LawSites, September 27, 2023) <https://www.lawnext.com/2023/09/relativity-announces-air-for-review-its-generative-ai-review-product-plus-other-ai-products-for-e-discovery-and-data-management.html> accessed January 12, 2025
[16] KiraSystems.com, “How Law Firms Leverage Kira’s AI to Cut Contract Review Time by Up to 60%” (KiraSystem.com 2019) <chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://kirasystems.com/files/whitepapers/KiraSystems-How_Law_Firms_Leverage_Kira.pdf> accessed January 12, 2025
[17] “Brazilian Government Hopes to Make Litigation Savings with AI ” (Herbert Smith Freehills | Global law firm) <https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/latamlaw/2024-posts/Artificial-intelligence-in-Brazil> accessed January 12, 2025
[18] SG Courts, “Annual Report 2021” (2021) <https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/AnnualReport2021/> accessed January 12, 2025
[19] SG Courts, “Access to Justice – Family Justice @ Heartlands” (2021) <https://chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/AnnualReport2021/theme/default/pdf/Access%20to%20Justice%20-%20Family%20Justice.pdf> accessed January 12, 2025
[20] Registrar’s circular no. 9 2024. Default. (2024, September 26). <https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/news-and-resources/registrar’s-circulars/circular-details/registrar’s-circular-no.-9-2024-state-courts> accessed January 12, 2025.
