Record UK courts deal funds unlimited Crown Court days 2026/27

The government has announced a record funding deal for courts in England and Wales, confirming that Crown Courts will run without a cap on sitting days in the 2026/27 financial year. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said today, Tuesday 24 February 2026, that the aim is quicker, fairer outcomes for victims, with magistrates’ courts also funded to work at their highest operational level, according to a Ministry of Justice press release.

If you’re teaching or studying this, a quick definition helps: a ‘sitting day’ is a funded day when a judge can hear cases. In past years, budgets have capped those days, which meant some trials waited even when a courtroom and judge were free. Removing the cap means that, where there is capacity, a case can be listed rather than queued behind a funding limit.

Why now? Because delays have stretched people’s lives. Ministry of Justice data cited by the Law Society showed 76,957 Crown Court cases outstanding by March 2025, with thousands waiting a year or more. Reporting by the Guardian today puts the figure at over 80,000 as we enter 2026. For victims, witnesses and defendants, that means memories fade, anxiety grows, and justice feels distant.

The funding specifics matter. The Ministry of Justice says courts and tribunals will receive £2.785 billion in 2026/27, with £2.498 billion for day‑to‑day running and £287 million for capital projects. For the first time, there are firm commitments through to 2028/29, giving the system a clearer runway to plan staffing, listings and technology upgrades. This long‑term view is meant to stop the annual scramble that has previously forced late changes and wasted time.

Part of the capital money is earmarked for the court estate itself. Anyone who has worked in or visited a court knows the basics can break: leaks, heating failures, patchy video links. Judges have openly described closures and adjournments caused by crumbling buildings in recent years, as reported by national media. Repairs and modernisation are not cosmetic; they’re the difference between a trial going ahead today or drifting into next year.

Capacity increases go beyond the criminal courts. The government says the Immigration and Asylum Chamber will be funded for up to 26,000 sitting days next year, over 3,000 more than last year, to address a growing caseload. Civil courts are also due higher investment. The intention is a more balanced system so pressure in one area doesn’t simply spill into another.

There is a reform track running alongside the money. Ministers say they are acting on the first part of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which includes proposals for new judge‑only trials. Supporters argue this could move cases through faster and reduce intimidation of jurors; critics, including voices quoted by the Financial Times and The Times, warn about the impact on the right to jury trial and on public trust. It’s a live debate, and any change would need careful safeguards against bias and error.

Digital change is in the mix as well. David Lammy is due to speak at the Microsoft AI Tour in London later today, signalling greater use of digital tools and, potentially, artificial intelligence in scheduling, evidence handling and triage. Used well, tech can speed up admin and help sift vast digital records-remember, the Ministry of Justice says around 90% of crime now involves some digital evidence-but it raises questions we should all ask: who checks the outputs, how is data protected, and what happens when a tool gets it wrong?

Will unlimited sitting days alone fix the backlog? Probably not. The Bar Council has previously welcomed increases in sitting days while warning that courts also need enough barristers, judges, staff and working buildings to turn funded days into finished trials. Legal aid, disclosure rules and police forensics capacity all shape whether a case is actually ready to be heard. Money for listings is progress; money and management for the whole pipeline is what unlocks speed and fairness.

Here’s what this means for you if you’re learning about the system. In the short term, we can expect more trials to be scheduled earlier, especially where courts already have spare judge capacity. Victims and witnesses should get clearer dates and fewer last‑minute cancellations as buildings are repaired and staff teams stabilise. Defendants should see shorter waits on remand. But if preparation time-like analysing phones and laptops-remains slow, some cases will still queue even with more courtroom days available.

Media literacy check: today’s announcement is a government press release timed with a high‑profile speech. It presents the best‑case impact. To get the full picture, pair it with independent data and commentary. The Law Society has tracked record backlogs; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has written about post‑pandemic productivity in the courts; and reporters have covered closures caused by poor infrastructure. When you read claims about ‘record funding’, look for what is new (the three‑year commitment), what is recurring (capital repairs), and what remains uncertain (the effect of judge‑only trials).

Quick glossary to keep handy as you teach this topic. The Crown Court hears serious criminal cases like robbery, rape and serious assaults; magistrates’ courts handle most criminal cases first and many lower‑level offences to completion. A sitting day is a funded day a judge can hear cases. Backlog is the number of cases still waiting to be completed. Capital spending pays for buildings and big upgrades; resource funding pays for people and daily operations.

What to watch next: April 2026 marks the start of the 2026/27 financial year when uncapped Crown Court sitting days kick in. Over the year, track not just the number of sitting days but disposals-the cases actually finished-and the age of the oldest cases. Watch for the government’s detailed response to Leveson’s review and any legislation on judge‑only trials. And keep an eye on how digital tools are introduced: councils, courts and classrooms alike should insist on transparency, testing and a clear route to challenge errors.