Diane Gall’s husband, Martyn, had been out on a morning bike ride with his friends on their usual route one winter morning in November 2020 – when he was killed by a reckless driver. 

Diane and her daughters had to wait almost three years for her husband’s case to be heard in court.

The case was postponed three times, often without warning.

“You just honestly lose faith in the system,” she says.

“You feel there’s a system there that should be there to help and protect victims, to be victims’ voices, but the constant delays really take their toll on individuals and us as a family.”

The first trial date in April 2022 was cancelled on the day and pushed four months later.

The day before the new date, the family were told it wasn’t going ahead due to the barristers’ strike.

It was moved to November 2022, then postponed again, before eventually being heard in June the following year.

“You’re building yourself up for all these dates, preparing yourself for what you’re going to hear, reliving everything that has happened, and it’s retraumatising,” says Diane.

‘Radical’ reform needed

Diane’s wait for justice gives us an insight into what thousands of victims and their families are battling every day in a court system cracking under the weight of a record-high backlog.

There are 76,957 cases waiting to be heard in Crown Courts across England and Wales, as of the end of March 2025.

To relieve pressure on the system, an independent review by Sir Brian Leveson last month made a number of recommendations – including creating a new division of the Crown Court known as an intermediate court, made up of a judge and two magistrates, and allowing defendants to choose to be tried by judge alone.

He said only “radical” reform would have an impact.

But according to exclusive data collected for Sky News by the Law Society, there is strong scepticism among the industry about some proposed plans.

Before the review was published, we asked 545 criminal lawyers about the idea of a new tier to the Crown Court – 60% of them told us a type of Intermediate Court was unlikely to reduce the backlog.

“It’s moving a problem from one place to another, like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s not going to do anything,” says Stuart Nolan, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee.

“I think the problem with it is lack of resources or lack of will to give the proper resources.

“You can say we need more staff, but they’re not just any staff, they are people with experience and training, and that doesn’t come quickly or cheap.”

Instead, the lawyers told us creating an additional court would harm the quality of justice.

Chloe Jay, senior partner at Shentons Solicitors, agrees the quality of justice will be impacted by a new court division that could sit without a jury for some offences.

She says: “The beauty of the Crown Court is that you have two separate bodies, one deciding the facts and one deciding law.

“So the jury doesn’t hear the legal arguments about what evidence should be excluded, whether something should be considered as part of the trial, and that’s what really gives you that really good, sound quality of justice, because you haven’t got one person making all the decisions together.

“Potentially in an intermediate court, that is what will happen. The same three people will hear those legal arguments and make the finding of guilt or innocence.”

The most striking finding from the survey is that 73% of criminal lawyers surveyed are worried about offences no longer sitting in front of a jury.

Casey Jenkins, president of London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association, says this could create unconscious bias.

“There’s a real risk that people from minority backgrounds are negatively impacted by having a trial by a judge and not a jury of their peers who may have the same or similar social background to them,” she says.

“A jury trial is protection against professional judicial decisions by the state. It’s a fundamental right that can be invoked.”

Instead of moving some offences to a new Crown Court tier, our survey suggests criminal lawyers would be more in favour of moving cases to the magistrates instead.

Under the Leveson proposals, trials for offences such as dangerous driving, possessing an offensive weapon and theft could be moved out of the Crown Courts.

‘Catastrophic consequences’

Richard Atkinson, president of the Law Society, says fixing the system will only work with fair funding.

“It’s as important as the NHS, it’s as important as the education system,” he says. “If it crumbles, there will be catastrophic consequences.”

Ms Jenkins agrees that for too long the system has been allowed to fail.

“Everyone deserves justice, this is just not the answer,” she says.

“It’s just the wrong solution to a problem that was caused by chronic, long-term under-investment in the criminal justice system, which is a vital public service.

“The only way to ensure that there’s timely and fair justice for everybody is to invest in all parts of the system from the bottom up: local services, probation, restorative justice, more funding for lawyers so we can give early advice, more funding for the police so that cases are better prepared.”

Government vows ‘bold and ambitious reform’

In response to Sky News’ findings, the minister for courts and legal services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, told Sky News: “We inherited a record and rising court backlog, leaving many victims facing unacceptable delays to see justice done.

“We’ve already boosted funding in our courts system, but the only way out of this crisis is bold and ambitious reform. That is why we are carefully considering Sir Brian’s bold recommendations for long-term change.

“I won’t hesitate to do whatever needs to be done for the benefit of victims.”

The driver that killed Diane’s husband was eventually convicted. She wants those making decisions about the court system to remember those impacted the most in every case.

Every victim and every family.

“You do just feel like a cog in a big wheel that’s out of your control,” she says. “Because you know justice delayed is justice denied.”