Understanding the impact of court delays on victims

Introduction 

I achieved a master’s degree following research into the impact of crown court delays on victims in October 2023. This was a personal and professional milestone that felt almost unimaginable years earlier. Balancing motherhood, a demanding career and academic research was never easy, but this research linked to my day-to-day challenge of supporting victims within the criminal justice system.

Having worked within public protection for most of my service, the lasting impact of criminal offences on vulnerable individuals has shaped my career. It has also instilled a deep commitment to improving our service to victims.

The COVID-19 pandemic hit months into my role within criminal justice. Crown courts closed, trials were cancelled and the system was thrown into disarray. Working through this period with partners and colleagues across the country presented unimaginable challenges.

The backlog of cases, the frustration and the emotional toll on our staff were profound. It was during this time that my passion for victim care deepened. I wanted to understand not just the operational impact, but also the personal – and often unseen – effects of these delays on the people we aim to protect.

General consensus for high victim attrition has been attributed to policing investigations, signifying a failure within the system to adequately support and protect victims. But what do victims really think and what can we do to improve our support and reduce victim attrition? This is a million-dollar question in policing.

My research aimed to explore the social, mental and physical impact of court delays on victims. I sought to understand if this is connected to more victims retracting support for prosecution cases, and how both areas affect cases being brought to court for prosecution.

Literature review

There is extensive literature on the functioning of the courts. However, most academic studies have focused on court processes, defendants and legal professionals, with few exploring the victim’s experience. Understanding the link between delays and victim impact is essential to highlighting their position within the justice system.

The House of Lords Select Committee (2019 to 2021) described court delays as “unacceptably high” even before COVID-19, attributing them to chronic underinvestment. The pandemic merely exposed and intensified these structural weaknesses, leaving victims and defendants alike in prolonged uncertainty.

Victims often remain engaged with support services for extended periods, increasing resource demand on those services. Javorka (2022) adds a vital perspective by including the voices of sexual assault advocates, reporting that delays and adjournments re-traumatise victims. This is especially true when victims are left in limbo without clear timelines or communication. The lack of prioritisation for certain cases sends a damaging message about whose justice matters most.

Real-life cases illustrate the devastating impact of delays. Albrecht (2022) recounts the story of a young defendant held on remand for years before his case was dropped. He later died by suicide. Swerling (2020) tells of a domestic abuse victim who took her own life after waiting over three years for a trial. These tragedies underscore the emotional toll that delays take on both victims and defendants.

Economic theories from Gravelle (1990) and Vereeck (2000) suggest that delays can be used strategically by defendants to avoid trial, either by pleading early or manipulating the system. Albrecht (2022) expands on this, showing how delays can benefit defendants, especially those on bail, while victims suffer ongoing harm. The concept of “living life on hold” applies to both, yet victims often lack the flexibility or support afforded to defendants.

Feeley (2013) argues, as do Sydow and Schreyögg (2013), that delays are not accidental, but embedded in the adversarial structure of the court system. Courts rely on delays to manage demand, making them a form of self-regulation. This raises serious questions about whether justice is truly being served or simply deferred.

While these studies primarily focus on delays within the criminal justice system, they often overlook the profound impact on victims. This is particularly true in crown court cases, where delays can infringe upon a victim’s right to a private life.

If delays are considered an inherent feature of the system and a means of managing demand, this raises serious questions about whether such practices compromise victims’ rights. If the social consequences for victims were fully considered, investing in additional court resources to reduce delays might prove more cost-effective in the long term.

Findings 

National data 

Crown court cases increased nationally by 16.4% from 2015 to 2022 (rising from 53,648 to 62,440). Cases increased by 87% from the lowest point, which was in 2018, to 2022. Derbyshire followed a similar trend, with an 88% increase in cases from its lowest point, which was in 2017, to 2022.

Between 2019 and 2022, the number of national cases that were over one year old increased by 710% (1,949 to 15,793). In Derbyshire, these cases rose from 35 to 212 between 2015 and 2022, at which point they made 25% of all cases.

In terms of the time taken for cases to complete, for remand cases (suspect held in custody), the national average rose from 152 to 384 days between 2015 and 2022. Derbyshire improved over time, dropping to 191 days from 211 days in 2022.

For non-remand cases (suspect bailed), the national average rose from 232 to 384 days between 2015 and 2022. Derbyshire rose from 209 days to 368 days, an increased delay of five to six months for victims.

Victim withdrawal before trial dropped nationally from 22% to 15% between 2015 and 2022. In Derbyshire, victim withdrawal dropped from 22% to 13%. Late-stage withdrawals (after charge) also dropped in this time period.

Victim survey

Social impact

Victims reported serious strain on family relationships, including breakdowns in marriages and sibling ties. One victim described choosing between justice and her marriage because of the emotional toll of repeated delays: “We can’t switch off from the case to enjoy ourselves.”

Delays also affected work and financial stability, with some victims’ partners struggling at work due to stress. Long waits for trial (up to 4.5 years) left victims feeling unsupported and unsafe, especially when accused individuals remained in the community.

While mental health issues were widely reported, physical symptoms were less detailed. One victim mentioned that stress and anxiety worsened their existing physical disabilities. 

Views on the court system 

Victims expressed frustration with the lack of communication and transparency from the courts. Reasons for adjournments, such as unavailable judges or defence barristers, felt unacceptable to victims.

Many said they would hesitate to report a crime again because of the emotional toll and inefficiency of the system: “I have absolutely no faith in the criminal justice system.”

Despite their suffering, none of the victims said they wanted to withdraw from their cases. Instead, they just wanted closure.

Witness care officer interviews

Witness care officers agreed that cases now take significantly longer to reach trial, often involving three to four adjournments. While data shows that 25% of cases exceed 12 months, officers feel that delays are widespread and emotionally damaging. 

Witness care officers reported serious mental health issues among victims, including hospitalisations and suicidal thoughts. One officer recounted a victim who attempted suicide the night before trial because of overwhelming pressure.  

Officers reported that victims’ lives are deeply disrupted in terms of social impact. One victim had put her life on hold for four years, delaying having children and changing jobs. Many victims faced financial strain, especially when employers were unsupportive of repeated court absences. Victims also advised others not to report crimes because of the trauma of the process. 

Witness care officers stated that the role has become more emotionally demanding. Officers now deliver mostly bad news, often without clear reasons for adjournments. One officer described the stress of waiting to find out whether a suicidal victim was safe: “This was the most concerning time, waiting to hear if the victim was okay or if she had hurt herself.” 

Conclusion 

Quantitative data showed that crown court cases take five to six months longer on average to conclude. Yet, contrary to expectations, victims are not withdrawing from cases at higher rates. In fact, data from the Home Office shows that victim withdrawals decreased between 2015 and 2022.

Victims who were surveyed expressed frustration and emotional exhaustion, but also a sense of obligation to see their cases through. As one victim put it, they had “come too far to turn back”. This suggests a troubling dynamic: victims feel trapped in a system that offers little support but demands their continued participation.

The most consistent and alarming theme was the impact on mental health. Victims described feeling “trapped”, “in limbo” and “punished” by the system. Victims reported anxiety, depression and, in some cases, suicidal thoughts. The lack of mental health support, especially after last-minute adjournments, was a major concern. These delays often come just as victims have mentally prepared for trial, compounding trauma and creating a cycle of emotional harm.

The original concept for a bespoke victim support app encountered rising development costs. Concurrently, a national solution was being progressed. As a result, leadership opted to support the national app build, covering both pre- and post-charge stages. In the interim, Derbyshire adopted the use of My Support Space, offering victims access to online support.

Face-to-face support for long-term cases is widely recognised as the gold standard in witness care. However, increasing court delays have made it difficult for many forces to allocate the necessary resources. To move forward, a sustainable funding model is needed that allows for tailored support based on individual victim needs. This raises an important question: do all victims require gold-standard support or is a tiered, needs-based model more practical and scalable?

The sentencing review has the potential to reduce court delays, making a financially sustainable face-to-face support model more achievable. This reform could serve as an important turning point. However, further research is needed to evaluate its impact and to design a scalable victim support framework aligned with these changes. Additionally, a critical area for investigation is understanding how ongoing delays and the post-COVID return to standard operations affect victim attrition.

This study paints a sobering picture of the emotional and social cost of court delays. While victims remain committed, their resilience is being tested to its limits. Without meaningful reform, the justice system risks not only failing those it is meant to protect, but also deterring future victims from coming forward. The findings offer a clear message. Delays are not just a procedural issue, they are a human one – and the time to act is now.

Recommendations

It is recommended that forces speak to witness care units around these issues and consider: 

• Albrecht K, Hawilo M, Rountree MM and Geraghty T. (2022). Justice delayed: The complex system of delays in criminal court. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, volume 53, issue 4, pages 747 to 789 

• Bracewell K, Hargreaves P and Stanley N. (2022). The consequences of the COVID-19 lockdown on stalking victimisation. Journal of Family Violence, volume 37, pages 951 to 957 

• Ministry of Justice. (2022). Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2022. (Viewed on 3 October 2025) 

• Dawsey-Hewitt S, Jnagel T, Kalia S, Royal K, Seshadri S, Sutherland L, Magić J, McGivern M and Wilson Garwood R. (2021). Shadow pandemic – Shining a light on domestic abuse during COVID. Shadow Pandemic. (Viewed on 2 October 2025) 

• Feeley MM. (2013). ‘Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail’. New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro  

• Godfrey B, Richardson JC and Walklate S. (2022). The crisis in the courts: Before and beyond COVID. The British Journal of Criminology, volume 62, issue 4, pages 1036-1053 

• Gravelle HSE. (1989). ‘Rationing trials by waiting: Welfare implications’. Working Papers 210. London: Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance 

• Gravelle HSE. (1990). ‘Rationing trials by waiting: Welfare implications’. International Review of Law and Economics, volume 10, issue 3, pages 255 to 270 

• House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. (2021). COVID-19 and the courts. (Viewed on 2 October 2025)  

• Javorka M, Engleton J, Goodman-Williams R, Gregory K and Campbell R. (2023). The impacts of COVID-19 on criminal legal proceedings and victim advocacy for sexual assault survivors. Victims & Offenders, volume 18, issue 2, pages 1 to 18 

• Roagna I. (2018). The right to trial within reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR: A practical handbook. Horizontal Facility for Western Balkans and Turkey. (Viewed on 2 October 2025)  

• Sydow J and Schreyögg G. (2013). ‘Self-Reinforcing Processes in and among Organizations’. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 

• Vereeck L and Mühl M. (2000). ‘An economic theory of court delay’. European Journal of Law and Economics, volume 10, pages 243 to 268 

• Victims’ Commissioner. (2022). "Enormous" court backlog takes "tremendous tolls" on victims. (Viewed on 3 October 2025)