Increase criminal justice budget and reopen magistrates' courts
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Increase criminal justice budget and reopen magistrates' courts” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Public finances & the next generation — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
The policy proposes a £2 billion increase in criminal justice spending with no stated funding source, which would add to borrowing or require cuts elsewhere. Because no offsetting revenue or savings mechanism is identified, the net effect on public finances is negative.
The evidence
- The policy commits to increasing the criminal justice budget from £10 billion to £12 billion, a £2 billion increase, with no stated funding mechanism. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will increase the criminal justice budget from £10 billion to £12 billion to ensure more high-calibre staff and cut delays, and reopen local magistrates' courts to clear case backlogs.”
- The MoJ budget is already projected at around £13.5 billion in 2025–26, meaning the policy's stated baseline of £10 billion is materially below current spending, making the real incremental cost relative to current plans unclear. — ifs.org.uk (institutional) — “The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget for England and Wales is projected to be around £13.5 billion in 2025–26, with day-to-day spending (Resource DEL) at approximately £13.0 billion.”
- The MoJ day-to-day resource budget was £10.7 billion in 2023–24, confirming the £10bn figure in the policy reflects a historical baseline, not the current one. — ifs.org.uk (institutional) — “the day-to-day resource budget in 2023-24 was £10.7 billion.”
- Reopening magistrates' courts would carry significant capital costs — for reference, the MoJ spent £26 million on a single court building's safety overhaul and technology upgrades. — barcouncil.org.uk (media) — “The MoJ spent £26 million on a safety overhaul and technology upgrades for the recently reopened Harrow Crown Court, after nearly three years of closure.”
- Over 162 magistrates' courts have been closed since 2010, meaning any reopening programme would involve substantial capital expenditure across many sites. — russellrussell.co.uk (media) — “Since 2010, over half of all magistrates' courts in England and Wales (162 out of 323, or 50.2%) have closed.”
Biggest unknown: Whether the policy would be funded by tax rises, cuts elsewhere, or borrowing — none of which is specified — would determine whether this worsens the debt path modestly or significantly.
Our reading: The policy's central fiscal commitment is a £2 billion increase in criminal justice spending. No funding mechanism — tax rise, savings elsewhere, or borrowing — is stated. Under O12's criteria, unfunded spending increases worsen the debt path unless the investment raises future productive capacity enough to offset it; no evidence of such a return is provided here. The policy's stated baseline (£10bn) is materially below the current MoJ budget (£13.5bn in 2025–26 per E1), so the real additional spend above existing plans is unclear — but could be smaller than the headline £2bn implies. However, even a smaller unfunded increment worsens the fiscal position at the margin. Reopening over 162 closed courts (E9) would require substantial capital expenditure beyond operating budget increases; E23 illustrates that even a single court re-opening cost £26 million. The policy does not address how these capital costs are met. Absent any counterfactual funding route or evidence of productivity gains that would raise future tax receipts, the policy unambiguously adds to near-term spending pressure with no identified offset. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the exact incremental cost above current plans is uncertain given the outdated baseline figure used in the policy text.
Crime, justice & national security — Mixed picture
minor · low confidence
The policy targets real problems — record court backlogs and closed magistrates' courts — but its promised £12 billion budget is actually below current MoJ spending of around £13.5 billion, so the 'increase' would in practice be a cut, undermining the staffing mechanism. Reopening local courts could improve access to justice, but only if staff and magistrates can be recruited in sufficient numbers.
The evidence
- The policy commits to raising the criminal justice budget from £10 billion to £12 billion to hire more high-calibre staff and cut delays, and to reopen local magistrates' courts. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “increase the criminal justice budget from £10 billion to £12 billion to ensure more high-calibre staff and cut delays, and reopen local magistrates' courts to clear case backlogs”
- The MoJ budget for England and Wales is projected at approximately £13.5 billion in 2025–26, meaning the policy's target of £12 billion would be below current spending. — ifs.org.uk (institutional) — “The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget for England and Wales is projected to be around £13.5 billion in 2025–26, with day-to-day spending (Resource DEL) at approximately £13.0 billion”
- The Crown Court backlog reached a record 80,203 cases by December 2025, more than double the pre-pandemic level. — canadianlawyermag.com (media) — “The Crown Court backlog reached a record 80,203 cases by December 2025, more than double the pre-pandemic figure of approximately 38,000 in 2019”
- Over half of all magistrates' courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010. — russellrussell.co.uk (media) — “Since 2010, over half of all magistrates' courts in England and Wales (162 out of 323, or 50.2%) have closed”
- Reopening local magistrates' courts would likely improve access to justice, particularly for rural, low-income or mobility-impaired individuals facing long travel distances. — russellrussell.co.uk (media) — “Reopening local magistrates' courts would likely improve access to justice, particularly for those in rural areas, low-income households, or individuals with mobility issues, who currently face long travel distances (som…”
- Extended travel times following closures contributed to defendants and witnesses failing to attend court, and non-appearance figures later rose. — russellrussell.co.uk (media) — “extended travel times contribute to defendants and witnesses failing to attend court, although the MoJ previously disputed a direct link at the time of initial closures, it has conceded that non-appearance figures later …”
- There is a chronic shortage of qualified legal advisers and magistrate recruitment has persistently fallen short of targets, limiting capacity gains from reopening courts. — localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk (media) — “the Justice Committee has noted a "chronic shortage" of suitably qualified legal advisers and challenges with magistrate recruitment and retention, with previous recruitment campaigns often falling short of targets”
Biggest unknown: Whether the £12 billion figure represents a genuine net increase or a real-terms cut relative to actual current MoJ spending determines whether the policy adds capacity or removes it.
Our reading: The policy addresses two genuine O5 problems: record court backlogs and the collapse of local magistrates' court provision following mass closures since 2010. Both problems are well-evidenced and directly impair justice delivery — a core O5 indicator. However, the central mechanism — a budget increase — is undermined by a baseline mismatch. The policy claims to raise spending from £10 billion to £12 billion, but current MoJ projected spending is already £13.5 billion. The £12 billion target would therefore represent a real-terms cut relative to the status quo, not an increase. This directly contradicts the stated goal of hiring more high-calibre staff to cut delays. If enacted at £12 billion, the likely effect on staffing is negative, worsening backlogs rather than clearing them. On the court-reopening side, the evidence is more genuinely positive: access to justice improves when courts are local, non-attendance drops, and local justice is strengthened. These are real O5 gains. But they depend entirely on being able to staff reopened courts — and the evidence points to chronic shortages of legal advisers and persistent failure to hit magistrate recruitment targets. The Justice Committee explicitly doubts capacity can scale without significant additional support. Absent the policy, backlogs would likely continue growing. The reopening of courts is a credible partial remedy if resourced. But the budget arithmetic as stated would leave the system worse funded than today, negating the staffing rationale. The two elements of the policy therefore pull in opposite directions on O5: reopening courts is a genuine improvement mechanism; the budget figure, if accurate, is a constraint that undermines it. This genuine tension — rather than manufactured balance — justifies a mixed verdict at minor magnitude with low confidence.