The study found that for every 10 criminal trials initially listed to begin on a certain date, 3 would proceed as scheduled; 4 would be settled without a trial, either through a guilty plea or withdrawal of the case by the prosecution; and 3 would be adjourned and rescheduled. Eleven reasons for trial adjournment or delay were identified. One reason is that legal counsel do not prepare for the trial because they believe it is unlikely to proceed. A second reason is that the prosecution is uncertain about the strength of its case and how to proceed, and a third reason is that the prosecution decides to amend the charges on the indictment shortly before the trial date, leading to the likelihood of late plea negotiations. Other reasons for trial delay are the lack of experienced attorneys, limited or late disclosure of evidence, limited or late communication between the prosecution and defense, limited incentives for early guilty pleas, and confusion about probable sentencing outcomes such that plea negotiations are obstructed. Remaining reasons for trial delay are limited consequences for intentional delay of the trial, and failure to manage victims and witnesses so they are able to appear on the scheduled trial date. In offering recommendations for reducing avoidable trial delays the study highlights significant work already done by the Standing Committee of Attorneys General Working Group on Criminal Trial Procedures convened in 1999. The findings are based on interviews and consultations with more than 60 stakeholders from 42 criminal justice agencies across Australia. Fieldwork was supplemented by the analysis of data on trial listing outcomes provided by States and Territories. 37 references and appended description of study methodology