The heartbreaking story of Diane Gall reveals how justice delayed for Diane became a prolonged burden. Her husband, Martyn, died in November 2020 during a morning bike ride when a reckless driver struck and killed him. Although Diane hoped for a swift trial, the legal process dragged on for nearly three years.
Her family faced several setbacks. The first trial was scheduled for April 2022 but was abruptly cancelled. Four months later, they prepared again—only to be told, the day before, that the barristers’ strike would postpone the hearing. That date moved to November 2022, but yet again, the case failed to proceed. Eventually, the court heard it in June 2023.
Understandably, Diane described the experience as devastating. Each cancelled date forced her to emotionally prepare, only to endure fresh disappointment. She explained that victims are expected to trust the legal system. However, the repeated delays eroded her confidence in it.
This personal ordeal reflects a national issue. As of March 2025, Crown Courts in England and Wales face over 76,000 unresolved cases. Clearly, the system struggles to keep up. In response, Sir Brian Leveson presented a reform plan. His proposals included the creation of an intermediate Crown Court and allowing judge-only trials for specific offences.
Despite the intention to reduce backlogs, many legal professionals remain unconvinced. A survey by the Law Society found that 60% of 545 criminal lawyers believed the new court tier would not address the root problems. Instead, some compared the reforms to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
In their view, the issue stems from lack of investment and trained personnel. They argue that a new structure without resources simply shifts the problem rather than solving it. Moreover, critics worry that these changes could reduce fairness in the justice process.
For example, legal experts like Chloe Jay warned that eliminating juries in some cases could diminish the quality of justice. She noted that separating the roles of fact-finders and law interpreters ensures impartial decisions. Allowing a single panel to handle both may lead to flawed outcomes.
Additionally, others raised concerns about bias. Casey Jenkins, president of the London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association, pointed out that minority defendants could suffer more under judge-only trials. She believes juries offer protection through community representation—something judges alone may not reflect.
Instead of introducing a new tier, many lawyers preferred handling minor offences in magistrates’ courts. According to Law Society president Richard Atkinson, solving this crisis requires proper funding. He emphasized that justice, like healthcare or education, is a public necessity. Without fair investment, the consequences could be severe.
In reply, the government acknowledged the problem. Sarah Sackman KC MP, minister for courts and legal services, stated that bold reforms are under review. She admitted that the government inherited a system already overwhelmed and stressed the need for lasting improvements.
In the end, Diane finally saw the driver convicted. Yet, she said the years of delays left a lasting emotional toll. For her, justice delayed for Diane meant more than legal inconvenience—it meant extended grief and broken trust. She urged decision-makers to remember victims when shaping future justice reforms.
