Labour

Government announces £17.4m court technology pilots following Leveson review

Ministers have announced £17.4 million for virtual remand hearing pilots and up to £5 million for Crown Court case coordinators in their response to Lord Leveson’s criminal courts review.

By Charlotte Mercer • Published 12 October 2026 at 18:00 • 3 min read
Share article X Facebook LinkedIn WhatsApp Email

The government has announced £17.4 million to pilot virtual remand hearings in at least four police force areas in England and Wales as part of its formal response to Lord Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts.

The Ministry of Justice published its response on Monday 12 October 2026, addressing all 180 recommendations made across the two parts of the independent review. Ministers say the programme is intended to tackle delays in a system with almost 81,000 outstanding Crown Court cases.

£17.4 million for virtual remand hearings

Under the proposed pilots, defendants would attend initial hearings by secure video link from police custody suites rather than being transported to court. The government says this could reduce journeys between police stations, courts and prisons and free up capacity.

The £17.4 million funding supports pilots in at least four police force areas. The government has not presented the anticipated savings or improvements as established outcomes; further decisions about wider deployment will depend on evaluation and future funding.

Up to £5 million for Crown Court case coordinators

Ministers have also announced investment of up to £5 million to introduce specialist case coordinators across Crown Courts in England and Wales. Working with judges, prosecutors and defence teams, the coordinators would identify problems earlier and help prevent avoidable adjournments.

Response to 180 recommendations

The government says it has responded to all 180 recommendations in Lord Leveson’s review, accepting or accepting in principle the overwhelming majority. That is not the same as accepting every recommendation: the published response also records rejected proposals.

The review examined both structural changes to the criminal courts and ways to improve efficiency, including digital processes and remote hearings.

Backlog of almost 81,000 cases

According to the Ministry of Justice, the open Crown Court caseload stood at nearly 81,000 in June 2026, with almost 24,000 cases waiting for at least a year. The government says delays affect victims, witnesses and defendants and argues that technology and case management changes can help.

Government plans to retain jury trials in almost all Crown Court cases

The announcement comes as the Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to Parliament on 13 October. The Ministry of Justice says ministers will amend the Bill to remove proposals limiting jury trials, so that almost all Crown Court cases will continue to be heard by a jury.

That proposed amendment remains part of the parliamentary process; it should not be confused with a change already enacted.

Other technology measures

The Ministry of Justice says digital case transfers can allow judges to hear appropriate matters from elsewhere in the country. It has also laid legislation intended to expand broadcasting of certain court proceedings, including Administrative Court hearings and sentencing remarks by the Chief Magistrate.

The government says these measures will improve access and efficiency. Their eventual impact on the backlog will depend on implementation and evaluation.

Sources

  1. Ministry of Justice: Technology to bolster justice for victims as government responds to Leveson (12 October 2026)
  2. Ministry of Justice: Full government response to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts
  3. Government: Courts and Tribunals Bill
Have a different view?

Write a response.

Challenge the argument, add relevant evidence or explain how this issue affects people in practice. We welcome thoughtful, evidence-led contributions from across the political debate.

Write for Ayes To The Right
Know this MP?

Have first-hand knowledge or experience?

Have you worked with Alex Norris and Sarah Sackman? Do you have direct experience of this issue, their work or their recent parliamentary record?

We are interested in informed perspectives, constructive criticism and accounts that help readers understand the subject more clearly.

Write an article about this topic

Related articles