Nigel Farage vows to keep courts open round the clock to punish criminals
Nigel Farage has placed law and order at the centre of Reform UK’s political programme, promising a tougher approach to crime, policing and the criminal justice system as the party seeks to present itself as an alternative to Britain’s established political parties.
The Reform UK leader has repeatedly argued that the justice system needs to operate more quickly and that serious offenders should face meaningful consequences for their crimes. His proposals include additional prison capacity, tougher policing, the deportation of foreign criminals and major changes to the way the courts and wider justice system operate.
The language surrounding Reform’s plans has become particularly striking because of Farage’s determination to emphasise speed. At the party’s 2026 conference, he said a Reform government would be prepared to make Parliament sit for extended periods in order to pass its proposed legislation. BBC reporting on his conference speech said Farage pledged that Parliament could sit for 24 hours a day, six days a week if necessary during what he described as a national emergency.
Although that commitment concerns Parliament rather than literally requiring every court to operate continuously, it reflects the wider approach behind Reform’s law-and-order proposals: decisions should be made quickly, obstacles should be removed and offenders should face consequences without lengthy delays.
Reform’s focus on law and order
Crime has become one of the most important areas of Reform UK’s political messaging.
In July 2025, Farage announced a programme that he said would cost more than £17 billion and was intended to halve crime. The proposals included additional police officers, new prison capacity, temporary “Nightingale” prisons and measures to deport foreign criminals. The party also proposed spending money on overseas prison capacity.
The central argument is that the criminal justice system requires considerably more capacity.
That includes police officers capable of investigating crimes, prosecutors able to bring cases forward, functioning courtrooms and sufficient prison places for people who receive custodial sentences.
Farage has argued that previous governments have failed to maintain adequate capacity across these areas.
Reform’s approach is therefore not limited to increasing sentences. It involves changing the infrastructure surrounding criminal justice.
The court backlog
The debate about court opening hours comes against the background of a significant Crown Court backlog.
The issue has been raised across the political spectrum.
In a House of Commons debate in January 2026, Robert Jenrick, then speaking for Reform, argued that more court sitting days were needed to reduce delays. He said that thousands of additional sitting days were available and argued that courts should be operating much more intensively.
Jenrick also highlighted practical problems affecting the justice system, including prisoners arriving late to court, information-technology failures and shortages of advocates.
Those problems illustrate why simply opening courtrooms for longer does not automatically guarantee faster justice.
A courtroom requires judges, barristers, prosecutors, court staff, defendants, witnesses and jurors. If one part of the system is unavailable, extending the hours of the building itself may have limited effect.
The argument over court capacity is therefore partly an argument about resources and management.
Reform’s wider prison strategy
Farage’s proposals extend beyond the courts.
In 2026, Reform said a future government would deport foreign nationals serving prison sentences in Britain, either to their home countries or potentially to third countries.
The Independent reported in August 2026 that Reform had opened discussions with El Salvador over potentially renting prison places there. The party also proposed temporary “Nightingale” prisons in Britain to increase capacity.
Reform argues that these measures would create additional space in British prisons and allow serious offenders to serve longer portions of their sentences.
Critics, however, have raised questions about human-rights protections and the conditions that prisoners might face if transferred abroad.
Those disagreements are significant because the policy would require detailed agreements with foreign governments and would have to operate within applicable domestic and international legal obligations.
The political argument is therefore not simply about whether prisons should be tougher. It is also about how such a system could legally and practically be implemented.
A tougher message on criminals
Farage has sought to make clear that Reform’s approach would prioritise victims and public safety.
The party’s proposals include more police officers, additional prison places and a tougher response to serious offending.
The political message is straightforward: if the state has the power to imprison someone for a serious crime, the justice system should have the capacity to process the case and enforce the sentence without unnecessary delay.
This has resonated with wider public concerns about delays in the criminal courts.
However, reducing delays is a complicated administrative challenge.
A criminal case cannot simply be accelerated by removing every procedural safeguard. Courts have to consider evidence, ensure defendants receive a fair trial and allow both prosecution and defence to present their cases.
The question facing any government is therefore how to increase efficiency while maintaining the principles on which the justice system operates.
The jury-trial debate
That question has become especially prominent because of wider reforms proposed by the government.
In January 2026, Parliament debated proposals involving the use of jury trials for less serious offences. Jenrick opposed restrictions on jury trials and argued that the Crown Court backlog should instead be tackled through additional sitting days and improvements to court administration.
His argument was that jury trials themselves should not be treated as the main cause of the backlog.
The debate illustrates that there are several competing approaches to improving the courts.
One approach focuses on increasing capacity by adding sitting days and resources. Another involves changing which cases are heard in which courts. Others focus on technology, staffing and the movement of prisoners to and from court.
Reform’s wider law-and-order programme combines several of these ideas with significantly tougher rhetoric about offending.
Farage’s proposed political transformation
Farage’s approach to the courts is also connected to his broader argument that government institutions must be willing to act decisively.
At Reform’s 2026 conference, he argued that a future Reform government would declare a national emergency if necessary and move rapidly to implement its programme. He also warned that the party would seek changes to the House of Lords and judicial arrangements if institutions blocked its political agenda.
This represents a significant constitutional argument.
Supporters of Farage’s approach can interpret it as an attempt to ensure that an elected government can implement policies promised to voters.
Opponents may instead see the proposals as raising questions about the relationship between elected politicians, Parliament and judicial independence.
Those competing interpretations are likely to remain part of the political debate if Reform continues to develop its programme.
Can longer hours deliver faster justice?
The practical question behind the headline remains whether keeping courts open for longer would actually reduce delays.
There is a straightforward argument in favour.
If more courtrooms are available, more cases can theoretically be heard. Additional sitting days can increase capacity and potentially reduce waiting times.
But capacity is only one part of the problem.
Courts also depend on judges, lawyers, witnesses, defendants, prison transport and administrative staff. Technology failures or shortages in any of those areas can result in hearings being postponed even when a courtroom is available.
That is why the justice debate has increasingly focused on the system as a whole.
A government seeking faster justice would need to address several bottlenecks simultaneously rather than relying on extended opening hours alone.
Reform’s developing political identity
Farage’s law-and-order proposals form part of a broader attempt to establish Reform UK as a party with policies covering the full range of government.
Immigration and national sovereignty remain major themes, but crime, policing, prisons and the courts have become increasingly prominent.
The party wants voters to associate Reform with a tougher approach to criminal justice and with a willingness to challenge existing arrangements.
Its critics will continue to question the cost, legality and practicality of some of its proposals.
The disagreement is therefore likely to continue well beyond the headline promise of keeping courts open around the clock.
The underlying issue is how Britain should respond to delays in the criminal justice system while maintaining the safeguards expected in a democratic society.
Farage’s answer is to emphasise greater capacity, tougher enforcement and faster decision-making.
Whether those proposals could deliver the scale of improvement Reform claims would depend on their detailed implementation, available resources and the legal framework governing Britain’s courts.
For now, the promise of a much more intensive justice system has become another prominent element of Reform UK’s attempt to distinguish itself on crime and public safety.
The message from Farage is clear: a future government led by Reform would seek to put speed, enforcement and punishment at the heart of its approach to criminal justice. The practical debate will be over how those ambitions could be delivered while preserving the independence and procedural safeguards of the courts.
