There are many chaotic aspects to the public performances played out in court: key participants in trials and other hearings do not turn up when they are supposed to; equipment fails to work; vital paperwork cannot be found or contains glaring mistakes. A casual observer might frequently sense that a case is unravelling, as defendants, witnesses and counsel are called with an increasing sense of urgency across the PA system of the courthouse; court staff hurry to find missing people or missing technical apparatus; police officers or junior lawyers are dispatched by an angry judge or frustrated counsel to retrieve or photocopy documents; and juries, witnesses and people in the public gallery are sent in and out of the courtroom on a variety of pretexts. The rhythm and momentum of a case frequently shifts, with delays and periods of tedium giving way to bursts of tense and even frantic action. And yet, despite the apparent disorganisation and disruption, cases progress through their various stages in an innately structured and logical manner. The court sits with the judge at the head, surrounded by court staff and counsel who perform their respective roles in the manner ascribed to them by law and tradition; defendants enter the dock from where they watch their fate unfold; other professional and lay participants are ushered in and out of the courtroom as required; and the case reaches its conclusion in accordance with the rules of the judicial process and the information put before the court.

The term ‘structured mayhem’ is used here to describe this juxtaposition of order and disorder in the business of the Crown Court. The theme of structured mayhem will be examined in detail over the course of this chapter, the first part of which will focus on the process of getting a case to court, and the second part on the stop-start progress of cases once they are at court. The chapter will conclude by looking at a single case to demonstrate structured mayhem in practice.

This discussion of structured mayhem should be set in the context of ‘austerity Britain’ and policies driven by a government ‘with a tight financial settlement to work within and with considerable exasperation about how quickly and effectively our courts operate’ (Bowen and Whitehead, 2013, p 6).