CBA Briefing – 21.07.26

Let there be absolutely NO doubt: the Criminal Bar Association is fundamentally opposed to the proposed restrictions on the right to jury trial.

In this edition:

The Changing Political Landscape
Criminal Legal Aid: Proposals for Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme Reform – What it Says In Summary
Fraud In The Digital Age – Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences – why was this published 7 months late?
A Judicial Response to the Leveson Review
New Practice Direction on Listings in the Criminal Courts
New LCJ Guidance on Live Links in Criminal Courts
Someone is Reading ….
Congratulations to Barbara Mills KC
In Memoriam – Mike Smith, of Park Square Chambers

The Changing Political Landscape

Yesterday we sat waiting with bated breath to discover who would stand, and who will fall in our new Cabinet. Today we await the appointments of the Junior Ministers
.
We have had our differences with the current Government and fought a number of battles across the past year and more – in respect to the public’s right to be tried by a jury, the much-needed increases in fees for the criminal Bar, and the absolutely essential work that is needed to fix the courts’ infrastructure to make them function efficiently once again, and to improve our working environments and lives. But setting those aside for a moment – we do want to thank those within the Government with whom we have engaged and met many times over the past year. Sarah Sackman MP, David Lammy MP and the civil servants who work with them, have throughout this process been unfailing in their courtesy and their consideration towards the CBA.

Whether we agree or not, the debate that has raged around the efficacy of the Criminal Justice System has been a necessary one. Without it, and without the opportunity for argument and discussion that it has engendered, the Criminal Justice System and the state of our courts would not have been given such focus, and the chance for improvement.

We also thank Sir Keir Starmer for his wider service to this country, and his work internationally. We wish him the very best in his future endeavours.

Now the CBA looks forward to working with the new cohort: Alex Norris MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Ellie Reeves MP, Attorney General, and all the justice ministers to ensure strategic planning and concomitant criminal justice funding is put in place in line with the Prime Minister’s upcoming 10-year plan for Britain. A plan that puts people at the heart of a caring nation, understands that it must be underpinned by a fully funded and functioning criminal courts system and a vibrant independent criminal Bar.

We are aware that in December Alex Norris spoke of his support for the Government’s proposals to restrict trial by jury. However – that was then, and the arguments he advanced were merely a regurgitation of the same poorly informed messages that were circulating at that time. Those are now well and truly out of date, having been debunked by the CBA, the Bar Council, the Circuit Leaders, the Institute of Government, and a host of others included retired members of the judiciary at the highest level, and senior members of the Black Bar. This is now – and the debate has moved on. We very much hope that Mr. Norris has followed it, listened, and taken on board the many criticisms that we have mounted – together with the multiple flaws that have been identified.

For example, in April Mr. Norris was hosted by Harpreet Sandhu KC, leader of the Midland Circuit to a visit to Nottingham Crown Court, and had an opportunity to speak with him, and Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council, together with Circuit Junior Lucy Jones, and Assistant Junior Jack Stuart and other barristers about the real reasons for the backlog, the issues faced by the criminal Bar, and the crumbling Court infrastructure – which he was able to see for himself first hand. He appeared receptive, we will find out how much so soon.

Either way, over the coming days as we see the remaining appointments, including who will become Minister for Courts and Legal Services, a clearer idea of where we are going as far as the Criminal Justice System is concerned will no doubt emerge. If Minister Sackman remains in post, we will continue to engage with her as always with the courtesy and respect that she deserves – while still fighting for what we know to be right.

Criminal Legal Aid: Proposals for Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme Reform – SUMMARY

On 15th July 2026, the MOJ published Criminal Legal Aid: Proposals for Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme Reform.

The full proposal document can be found here: Criminal legal aid: proposals for Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme reform – GOV.UK, and

the Impact Assessment can be found here: advocates-graduated-fee-scheme-reform-consultation-impact-assessment.pdf.

The letter received from Minister Sackman announcing this consultation can be found here.

These documents set out the Government’s proposals for the distribution of the “up to £34 million” that was announced by David Lammy MP on 15th December 2025. This followed many months of negotiations between the MoJ by both the CBA and the Bar Council Remuneration Committees through the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board [CLAAB] in respect of the needed increase in rates for AGFS fees, and this proposal follows our joint submission in January as to the distribution of these funds.

This however is the first occasion when we have seen the Government’s suggestion. We have been told it is not necessarily a final position, and that the Government is eager to hear our response to it.

The Government’s Proposal in Summary

In summary, the overall effect of the proposal is calculated to be an increase of approximately 10% on current AGFS rates.

In cash terms, the MoJ predicts that the overall increase in AGFS spending will be £34 million per annum (inclusive of VAT) in steady state. This is comprised of

£31 million in increases which are within the scope of the present consultation, plus
£3.6 million per annum on current fees [which arises from changes announced and implemented this month (July 2026)].

By way of comparison, total spending on AGFS advocates’ fees in the latest year for which full figures are available (2024-25) was £292 million (inclusive of VAT). This confirms that the MoJ’s percentage estimate is correct, and the additional £34 million is roughly a 10% overall increase.

This is not a flat rate increase.

The proposal includes a 6% increase across the board in brief fees for all offences. It does not include any increase in Daily Appearance Fees (‘refreshers’). The implications of this are discussed below.

The remainder of the 10% increase arises from targeted changes. There are significant proposed increases for certain stages or types of hearing, including:

early guilty pleas up 30% (65% of the trial fee, up from 50% where it currently stands);
uplifting the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) and Further Case Management Hearings fee by 25%;
abuse of process, disclosure, and admissibility argument hearings, up 50%;
increasing fees for appeals from magistrates’ courts and appeals to the Court of Appeal by 10% (in addition to the general 6% increase);
Breach hearings, adjourned appeals, noting briefs – 10%;
increasing committal for sentence hearing fee by 25%;
uplifting fees for post-Crown Court trial sentencing hearings (where the court lists the case for a separate sentencing hearing after trial) by 20%;
widening criteria for bands 1.1 and 1.2 to include cases where the victim or defendant is aged 17 years.

There are also targeted increases for certain offence groups where the consensus is that the fee rates are comparatively poor, with additional increases ranging from 5% to 9%, as follows:

Murder and Manslaughter – targeted increase of 9%
Serious violence – targeted increase of 7%
Sexual Offences (involving children) – targeted increase of 8%
Sexual Offences (involving adults) – targeted increase of 7%
Offences against the public interest – targeted increase of 8%
Driving offences – targeted increase of 5%
Burglary and Robbery – targeted increase of 6%
Firearms offences – targeted increase of 5%
Other offences against the person – targeted increase of 8%
Exploitation/Human Trafficking offences – targeted increase of 8%
Public Order Offences – targeted increase of 5%

For the avoidance of doubt, the changes are cumulative.

For example, the brief fee (junior alone) on a rape case (offence class 5.1) would benefit from both the 6% general increase and the 7% targeted increase, resulting in an overall 13% increase. This increases the brief fee under the 2022 scheme from £2,185 to £2,478.

The 30% increase for guilty pleas would also be on top of the general and targeted increases. So for a guilty plea in a rape case the increase would be from £1,093 to £1,610.

The way in which the increases have been costed by the MoJ is set out below (based on Table 10 in the consultation document). As this is predicted spending, which in practice will depend on the actual mix and volume of work completed within any given year, the MoJ have expressed the figures as a ‘central scenario’ prediction.

Option	Steady State Cost – Central Scenario
General uplift of 6% to AGFS fees (excluding Daily Appearance Fees)	£11.0 m
Additional increases to brief fees for particular offence classes	£5.0 m
Increasing fees for guilty pleas by 30% (by increasing the ratio from 50% to 65% of the brief fee)	£7.0 m
Uplift the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) fee by 25%	£1.9 m
Increase fees for appeals from magistrates’ courts and appeals to the Court of Appeal by 10%.	£0.3 m
Increase committal for sentence hearing fee by 25%	£1.0 m
Targeted uplifts to selected pre-trial hearings	£1.0 m
Uplift fees for post-Crown Court trial sentencing hearings by 25%	£1.7 m
Widen criteria for bands 1.1 and 1.2 to include cases where the victim or defendant is aged 17 years	£1.4 m
TOTAL CONSULTED MEASURES	£31.0 m
Plus expedited measures (already implemented in July 2026)	£3.6 m
TOTAL	£34.0 m

The MoJ have also been considering potential reforms to the remuneration of Very High Cost Cases [VHCC’s], and the proposal requires some consideration around that as well.

What does this mean?

The question at this moment is not one of accepting / rejecting the proposal, it is on how we should approach the division of the £34m that we have been promised in our response to the consultation.

When these proposals were discussed back in January, the CBA argued for a flat rate increase across all fees. Our argument was that this would ensure fairness across different practice areas, and also that the simplicity of that proposal would promote speedy delivery of the increase.

The MoJ’s proposal has accepted a 6% across the board increase for brief fees but has excluded any increase for Daily Attendance Fees (ie. refreshers). Instead, the MoJ has put forward a proposal to increase the fee for early guilty pleas by a significant amount.

At present, a guilty plea fee is 50% of the brief fee, whereas a cracked trial fee is 100% of the brief fee. In order to promote early preparation, the MoJ wish to narrow that gap by increasing the guilty plea fee to 65% of the brief fee. In other words, the fee for a guilty plea will go up by 30%.

In the impact assessment, the MoJ estimate that the cost of this increase will be about £7.0 million per annum. That is approximately the same cost as an increase in the trial refresher fees of 6%.

The CBA’s analysis is that this comes down to a policy choice. Given the fixed budget allocation of £34 million, it is not possible to have both the increase in guilty plea fees and an increase in daily refreshers. There has to be a choice between one or the other.

which is fairer to the criminal Bar? and
which achieves the Government’s own policy objectives?

The CBA have pulled together a Remuneration Committee team to review the proposals and draft our response to the consultation. We have been and will continue to liaise with the Bar Council and the AGFS working group on which we sit, together with Circuit Leaders and Prof. Martin Chalkley (a professor of economics engaged as an expert consultant on fees by the Bar Council) to discuss our approach.

We are already collecting information from junior representatives from criminal sets, and as soon as we are able, we will be asking for the criminal Bar’s broad views on how the cake should be cut in a short questionnaire.

In doing so, the following should be taken as a given:

The CBA will be continuing to fight for a greater uplift in fees;
The CBA will be continuing to fight for a pay review body, and increases on an annual basis in line with inflation, to bring us in line with other professions and the judiciary;
The CBA will continue to argue that the implementation of this £34m, however divided, should apply to current instructions, rather than simply new instructions;
The CBA will continue to argue that the 3.6m that has been said to be directed at the “underspend” from 2022 should not be drawn from the £34m announced in December 2025.

Fraud In The Digital Age – Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences

Jonathan Fisher KC’s second report has finally been published on the 14th July 2026. Quite why it has taken so long is something of a mystery, particularly as it is clear from the introduction that it was completed in December 2025.

The objective of the Review was to consider the following questions:

Are the current methods of detection, investigation and prosecution sufficiently robust?
Does the legislative framework possess the flexibility required to respond to modern fraud-related offending?
Do current penalties fit the crime?

In addressing them, this excellent Report makes 47 clear recommendations, which are summarised in Section 22. The full Report can be found here.

Of interest is the conclusion the Independent Review comes to in respect of Jury trials, at paras 846 to 856, which are worthy of some focus. Having taken evidence from a number of sources and heard competing arguments for and against juries in fraud trials, the Report finds firmly in the favour of trial by jury, clearly saying that “experience shows juries cope when cases are properly managed and presented” (para 851). And on this topic it concludes (at para 856):

“… the retention of jury trial for the most serious offences in the criminal lexicon but not for fraud would devalue the importance of fraudulent misconduct and reinforce the historic ambivalence towards fraud as a civil matter rather than a serious public wrong. This would be the wrong message for Parliament to send, in circumstances where the case for fundamental change in the manner of trial is not made out”.

But –- bearing in mind where we were in December, the arguments that were being mounted in respect of jury trials, and the announcements that were being made in respect of the Government’s proposals following Part 1 of the Leveson Review – why has it taken 7 months for this Report, which flatly contradicts the Government position, to be published?

We will be seeking answers to four key questions:

When was the decision made to delay publication?
What were the grounds for the delay?
Who made the decision to delay?
Why is this being published NOW – just as the Government is shifting?

A Judicial Response to the Leveson Review

Last Monday we pointed out that it had been a full year since Part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of the Criminal Courts had been published, but we still do not have a formal Government response to his recommendations.
However – on Friday, the response of the Judiciary was published.

In so doing, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill has said:

“While criminal justice policies are a matter for Government and Parliament; the judiciary is committed to playing a full and active part in bringing down the backlogs and modernising how the criminal courts operate.

“Recommendations from Sir Brian Leveson related to changes to the listing of cases and enabling greater remote access to courts are already underway, led by judges working with organisations across the criminal justice system. We have carefully considered all of the other recommendations and I thank Sir Brian Leveson and his team for their engagement with the judiciary during his review.

“As Head of Criminal Justice for the judiciary, I would also like to record my gratitude to the judiciary, including the magistrates, to the legal professions and to HMCTS court staff who continue to work tirelessly in the criminal courts across England and Wales.”

The full response can be found here.

New Practice Direction on Listings in the Criminal Courts

The new Practice Direction on Listings sets out the national framework, and comes into effect on 1st October 2026. I can be found here.

New LCJ Guidance on Live Links in Criminal Courts

The new Guidance issued by The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill is also to be implemented by 1st October 2026. I can be found here.

Someone is Reading….

After our briefing last week, we were pleased to see this short article published in City AM, which added some pressure to our call for “an urgent guarantee from incoming Prime Minister Andy Burnham to save jury trials”, saying that “The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has ramped up pressure on Burnham to officially drop “misguided” clauses in the Courts and Tribunals Bill that would curb the historic right to a trial by your peers”.

We wait to see whether Mr. Burnham agrees….

Barbara Mills KC

All of us at the CBA send our heartfelt congratulations to Barbara Mills KC, who has received a peerage in Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation honours. Despite being a family law practitioner, as Chair of the Bar Council in 2025 Barbara not only embraced the criminal Bar, but also fought for us, for our fees, and for the right to jury trial. Her collegial approach demonstrated how strong we can be when we all work together as one. Well done Barbara.

In Memoriam – Mike Smith, Park Square Barristers, Leeds

It is with great sadness that we announce that Michael Smith of Park Square Barristers in Leeds passed away on Saturday after a short illness. Mike was called to the Bar in 1980 and for over 30 years prosecuted and defended in all manner of criminal cases, with an emphasis on serious crime. Having been a CPS advocate for many years, Mike had just recently made the decision to join the independent bar, becoming a member of PSB in September 2025.

Head of Chambers, Richard Wright KC has said:

“We were absolutely the winners in that change of direction and were delighted to welcome into Chambers a skilled advocate, an intelligent lawyer, and more importantly a thoroughly decent and kind man. Decency is a word that summed Mike up. You knew where you were with him, and you could rely upon him completely. His word counted for a very great deal and his judgement was impeccable.

Mike faced his illness with characteristic quiet dignity surrounded by the love of his family. Our thoughts today are with them. I hope that in time his young children may have an opportunity, if they wish to do so, to read tributes to their dad like this one and to know what a special man he was and how much his colleagues respected him.“

Mike is a huge loss to the criminal Bar, and to all who knew him. We send our thoughts and condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues.

Yours,

Riel Karmy‑Jones KC Andrew Thomas KC
Chair Vice‑Chair

View more news

CBA Briefing – 21.07.26

Share