The justice system does not have a technology problem: it has a connection problem

Sir Brian Leveson, in Part 1 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts published in July 2025, described a system under unsustainable pressure from rising caseloads, chronic delays and mounting inefficiency, and set out recommendations to re-stabilise criminal justice. The data already shows why.

The Crown Court backlog stood at 79,619 cases at September 2025, more than double pre-pandemic levels. Around one in four Crown Court trials does not proceed on the day. The median time from offence to completion reached 355 days in Q3 2024, up from 253 pre-pandemic. The prison population sat at 85,613 at December 2025, with over 16,000 prisoners released early under emergency measures between September and December 2024.

Investment is coming. The MoJ resource budget for 2025–26 is approximately £13 billion. The Lord Chancellor lifted the cap on Crown Court sitting days for 2026–27, within a £2.785 billion courts and tribunals settlement. The CPS received £96 million across the spending review period for prosecutorial capacity, digital and AI capability.

But investment in individual agencies has limits that no funding settlement alone can resolve. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that between 2019 and 2024, Crown Court sitting days increased by 29 percent while case disposals rose by only 17 percent. The IFS concluded that “it seems likely that problems in other parts of the criminal justice system have contributed to issues in the Crown Court.” Productivity recovered to pre-pandemic levels by end of 2024, but the backlog kept growing because demand outpaced disposal. Additional money and effort alone will not resolve a problem that exists between organisations, not within them. The system lacks operational connectivity across organisational boundaries.

Imagine a system where a police file is validated before it reaches the CPS. Where a charging decision triggers scheduling based on actual availability. Where trial and first court listing readiness is visible to all parties. Where post-release supervision enables welfare outreach before a breach becomes formal. Not because each agency has a better tool, but because the tools talk to each other.

Where the system suffers

Every agency works within its own boundaries. Police forces investigate. The CPS charges. Courts hear cases. Prisons hold those sentenced. Probation supervises release and community orders.

The friction occurs at the handoff points between agencies. A police case file reaches the CPS incomplete and is returned for rework, adding delays. The CPS makes a charging decision but the court scheduling system has no real time visibility of courtroom, prosecutors, defence and witness availability. On the day of trial, the prosecution may not be ready, a witness has not been notified, disclosure has not been served, a translator hasn’t been booked. The case is adjourned. Another ineffective trial. Another victim waiting.

After sentencing, the disconnection continues. A probation officer needs information from police intelligence, electronic monitoring, court records, and the prison system. That information sits in four separate systems owned by four separate organisations. The officer often learns of a problem only after it has become a formal breach, triggering recall to prison and a restart of the supervision cycle.

None of these failures belong to a single agency. They exist at the boundaries where one organisation’s responsibility ends and the next one’s begins.

Why better technology in a silo will not fix this

Each agency is now pursuing digital transformation, and increasingly AI. The MoJ published its AI Action Plan in July 2025. The CPS has developed multiple digital applications on a low-code platform. HMCTS is testing AI transcription. The NPCC AI Playbook provides guidance to police forces across England and Wales. These are serious investments producing real results.

But each initiative operates within its own agency’s boundaries. A better CPS system does not tell a court listing officer that a case is ready. AI transcription does not alert a police force that a witness statement is overdue. A prison system cannot coordinate with probation and police to prevent an avoidable recall. The most expensive failures in the justice system are cross agency problems that no single agency’s technology, however intelligent, can solve. AI in a silo is still a silo.

The pattern that is needed

What is required is a cross-agency orchestration capability connecting existing systems. Police keep their records management. CPS keeps its case management. HMCTS keeps Common Platform. This need not begin with wholesale replacement. The layer ensures that when one agency completes its work, the next begins with the right information.

The justice system involves several departments with different accountabilities and governance structures. Judicial independence must be respected. Policing operates across 43 territorial forces in England and Wales with significant local operational independence. Data sharing must operate within Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018. These are real constraints, but they are solvable provided the approach is honest about them.

The hardest part is not the technology

The underlying technical capability to connect these systems largely exists. The harder question is organisational. Who owns the end to end case journey when no single agency controls it? Who sets cross agency standards when each organisation has its own budget, governance, and accountability? These are not technology problems. They are leadership problems.

The Leveson Review made 180 recommendations across both parts. The Lord Chancellor has committed record funding. The government has published a policing reform white paper proposing major structural reform of policing in England and Wales. Every agency is investing in digital capability. But until someone connects the work that each agency does in isolation, the system will continue to break at the same points, the handoff between one organisation and the next.
The justice system does not have a technology problem. It has a connection problem.

Justice and Emergency Services Programme activities

The techUK Justice and Emergency Services Programme represents tech firms operating in the public safety, criminal justice, and blue light markets. We create strong relationships between members and public sector customers, encouraging industry engagement, and unlocking innovation. Visit the programme page here.