Monday Message 03.11.25

Contents this week

  • Review of Crown Courts Efficiency
  • The Crown Court backlog – Basic Facts
  • Marshalling Initiatives – Croydon and Snaresbrook
  • The ‘Mazur’ decision – Legal Executives and the Right to Conduct Litigation
  • Quality of Advocacy Working Group – Proposed Specialist Panel for advocates representing child defendants
  • Legally Lifelong – online CPD event 4th November 2025
  • New CPS website
  • Stephen Leslie KC

Sir Brian Leveson Review Part 2 – Efficiency

Last week we had a meeting with Sir Brian Leveson as part of the Criminal Bar Association’s ongoing efforts to assist with the second part of his government-commissioned Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. The focus for this Part 2 of the Leveson Review is on improving efficiency. Sir Brian engaged with us and gave us significantly more than our allocated time, for which we are grateful.

We have disagreed with Sir Brian on his proposals to limit the right to trial by jury, both through his suggested creation of the Crown Court Bench division and the removal of the right to trial by jury in fraud and other complex cases. The CBA Snap Survey shows that the overwhelming majority of our members are against those proposals. We will continue to oppose them in our representations to the Ministry of Justice and through Parliament.  However, in other areas there is a considerable amount of common ground. It is clear that Sir Brian and his team are committed to finding ways to restore our Courts and the Criminal Justice System, and also to ensure the long term health of the legal professions. This Review is a genuine opportunity to repair the damage caused by more than two decades of serious neglect.

The CBA brings together the experience of thousands of people. Our members’ understanding of how the Crown Court works, what works well, and what is failing is second to none.

We receive updates daily from all of those who play a part in the Criminal Justice System, including you – our specialist criminal barristers who are at the coal face, conducting trials and other hearings across every single Crown Court in the country, within every available court room, regardless of the leaking roofs, broken lavatories,  malfunctioning lifts, lack of decent water, tea, coffee, and food facilities, without sufficient conference space, or clean working facilities.

Criminal barristers are also engaging daily with all of the participants in the process. We both prosecute and defend these cases, seeing the problems from both sides. We are collectively engaging day in day out with court staff, victims, witnesses, defendants and their families. This is our job. We do it well.

The information which we receive via our members gives us a comprehensive view of the real-world performance of the CJS throughout England and Wales. Our input is also informed by our regular meetings with:

  • the Bar Council,
  • the MoJ,
  • the Crown Court Improvement Group,
  • the Senior Presiding Judge,
  • Resident Judges and other Crown Court and part-time judges,
  • senior civil servants at HMCTS,
  • and other organisations and groups that work withing the Criminal Justice System.

Rest assured that we have relayed your experiences and your collective views to Sir Brian, as we did to the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor David Lammy MP, and Shabana Mahmood MP before him. We have also, in our more recent meetings and across the last year, made several suggestions as to what should be done.

Criminal Justice System in Crisis

The criminal justice system is not just under strain – it is buckling and on the brink of collapse. As criminal barristers, we know that sound decisions are based on the careful consideration of all the relevant evidence.  There may be a temptation to reach for “radical solutions” to alleviate the crisis. The motives behind that may be well-meaning, but it ignores much of the evidence, not least of the faith which the public have in the system of trial by jury.

The CBA have sought to shine a brighter light on the official data available. These shocking statistics reflect the real-world experience of criminal barristers, and the experience of the victims, accused and witnesses upon whom we rely to conclude trials successfully.

The Backlog – Some basic facts

  • On the latest MoJ figures (to end of June 2025), the Crown Court backlog was 78,329 cases. We know that figure is now much higher, and the recently released CPS data puts it at closer to 90,000 (based on unresolved defendants in the system).  That is a 25 year high, and an increase of approximately 10% in 12 months (under the current Government). The backlog has more than doubled in 7 years.
  • Delays in cases where defendants are remanded in custody have increased by 36%. For cases completed between April to June 2025, the average delay between charge and conclusion was 229 days. In 2018 the average delay was 168 days. This demonstrates that cases are now regularly falling foul of the custody time limit provisions (182 days).
  • There are significant disparities in timeliness that exist between regions and Crown Court centres often less than 50 miles apart. For example, the average delay between charge and the conclusion of a trial for a defendant in custody was as follows:
    • Central London – 318 days (229 cases).
    • North East London – 305 days (402 cases).
    • North West London – 289 days (342 cases).
    • Greater Manchester – 265 days (646 cases).
    • Merseyside – 166 days (311 cases).
  • In contrast, where a defendant is on bail, between April and June 2025 the average delay between charge and completion of trial was 400 days. That is an increase of 54% on the position in 2018 when the delay was 259 days.
  • Concerningly, the 2025 figures show that a higher proportion of trials are being postponed than are concluded, with 55% of trials being postponed.

All of the above only captures delays that we know of as a result of completed cases. We simply don’t have any detail about the cases that are incomplete. We do not have detail as to why trials are vacated each week. We don’t know where judicial or counsel capacity has had a bearing, where cases have been unready, whether it is due to over listing, or some other court failure.

We suggest clear reasons need to be recorded, and disseminated by HMCTS, so that proper analysis of the problems can be made. Until that data is captured, we will have little hope of improving, as without that evidence, suggestions for change are made in a vacuum and founded on nothing more than guesswork.

Last week some bailed cases were being given trial dates in December 2029. For the hundreds of thousands of the complainants and accused who are locked into cases that are stalled by the record backlog, whose lives have been put on hold while they wait for their trials to start, this is a living nightmare.

Impact on Remand Population

The increase in the backlog, and the ever-mounting delays are of course mirrored by an increase in the number of prisoners held on remand.

  • In June, the total prison population was 87,334. No doubt it is by now higher.
  • Maximum capacity is approximately 89,500.
  • As of June 2025, the number of prisoners on remand stood at a 50 year high of 17,701. That figure has more than doubled since 2018, when it stood at 8,788.
  • Without that increase of nearly 9000 additional remand prisoners, the prisons would be operating well within capacity.

Why?

Because when budgetary restrictions are imposed to limit the number of available court rooms that a resident judge can open to hear trials, the remand prison population rises, as do case backlogs. This puts even more pressure on judges to prioritise the remand portion of each Crown Court’s own case backlog, which in turn pushes out the dates for listing bailed cases even further.

RASSO cases

As we all know, RASSO cases often involve bailed defendants, which means additional waiting time for a trial listing.

  • The 78,329 cases in the backlog include a 13,328 sexual offence cases (an all-time high). That is nearly 10,000 more than there were 7 years ago in 2018, so there are now 4 times as many than there were before the pandemic.
  • Within that, are more than 4000 adult rape cases. In 2019 there were 573. That means that the number of adult rape cases outstanding is 7 times higher than pre-pandemic.
  • The delay in rape cases has increased by just over 60%. This year, the average time it took for a rape case to be concluded from charge was 17 ½ months. In 2016 it was 11 months.
  • As with other types of cases, there is significant variation between court centres. Examples of the range for the completion of contested RASSO trials are as follows:
    • Warwickshire – 854 days (4 cases)
    • Leicestershire – 826 days (6 cases)
    • Greater Manchester – 684 days (15 cases)
    • Derbyshire – 661 days (5 cases)
    • Central London – 392 days (8 cases)
    • Wales – 391 days (22 cases)
    • Merseyside – 386 days (7 cases)
  • CPS data clearly shows that victims are withdrawing their allegations. In the 12 months to the end of March 2025, 353 prosecutions for rape resulted in non-conviction because of “victim attrition or other witness problems”. Similarly, 7,297 domestic abuse cases failed for the same reason.

Since the summer of 2021, the Home Office and the MOJ have been driven by the ambition of the End-To-End Rape Review, to increase rape prosecutions by the end of the last Parliament (summer 2024) back to 2016 levels.  The figures above demonstrate that whether a trial comes to court within a year and a half, or within 4 or 5 years may depend as much on the resources available to the regional CPS team prosecuting the case as on the number of court rooms one local Court is able to keep open over another in a neighbouring Circuit.

It is almost a postcode lottery.

What Should Be Done?

There is so much that needs to be done. The following are just some of the most pressing matters.

  • The court estate and infrastructure need significant investment. We have previously spoken and made written submissions about the poor conditions in which we work, and the fact that many criminal barristers are considering their exit clause from this profession.
  • We have reminded the MoJ of their promise to consider multi year funding settlements for the Bar, and similarly raised it with Sir Brian, along with issues arising out of the LGFS scheme.
  • It is essential that these matters are addressed, and significant investment made into our court buildings, and our remuneration reviewed. The Government may consider such investment to be something neither immediately necessary, nor attractive, because the effect on the backlog is difficult to quantify. However, physical deterioration directly leads to court delays. A number of courts in recent years have had to close either some courtrooms, or the whole building due to disrepair issues: failures of gates to admit prison vans, asbestos, leaking roofs, electricity, lighting, air conditioning and heating failures, for example.  The queues caused by poor security systems and inadequate entry points also lead to cases starting late.
  • We remind the Government that attrition rates at the Bar are high.  One in 3 criminal barristers are actively seeking to leave the profession; one in 3 to move their practice to another discipline. If our working conditions do not improve, there may not be sufficient criminal barristers to prosecute and defend in these cases. The effect of that will also be difficult to quantify.
  • Funding must be provided to remove the artificial cap on sitting days.
  • Recruitment at the Bench and Bar is essential.
  • There must be targeted investment into local improvements.
  • The sharing of knowledge between resident judges and their listing officers would yield more fundamental improvements in a relatively short time span without the rush to “radical reform” that risks undermining our cherished principles of justice that have taken centuries to perfect, in the interests of the accused and victims of crime alike.
  • Triage hearings should be held for the older cases within the backlog.
  • Greater and better use of CVP and electronic communication for administrative hearings would ease the burden on courts, judges, counsel, and court staff.
  • We have made our opposition to the Crown Court Bench Division clear, but some lesser either-way offences could be re-classified so as to be summary only, and be dealt with in the magistrates’ court, for example criminal damage and shoplifting offences.
  • Prison Escort Service Contracts [PECS] must be reviewed, failures to bring defendants to court on time properly reported, and proper penalties imposed.
  •  Similar ongoing issues with a lack of interpreters needs to be resolved.

The list does not end there. Over the coming months the officers of the CBA will be continuing our engagement with all parties to try to make the Criminal Justice System, our Courts, and our working lives better.

IN OTHER NEWS

Snaresbrook Marshalling initiative to be taken up by Croydon Crown Court

The Snaresbrook Marshalling initiative for first 6 pupils is proving to be a great success. We are delighted to announce that Croydon Crown Court is also offering marshalling experiences for first 6 pupils, and others are expected to follow.

In the first instance, applications to both Snaresbrook and Croydon are to be made by senior clerk or head of the pupillage committee to the resident judges, HHJ Rosa Dean and HHJ Elizabeth Lowe respectively.

In anticipation of other court centres joining the initiative, the CBA will be setting up a centralised system of application via Aaron Dolan. We will provide further details in due course.

MAZUR – Conduct of Litigation – Clarification and Continuing Discussion

The recent High Court decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has clarified that only individuals personally authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 may conduct litigation.

Working under the supervision of an authorised person is not in itself sufficient.

For barristers, this serves as an important reminder to remain mindful of the boundaries of this reserved activity and, where uncertainty arises, to seek clarification or the relevant authorisation from the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

The decision has prompted renewed discussion across the profession about how the line between advocacy and the conduct of litigation should be understood in practice. At present, guidance from the various regulatory and representative bodies- including the Law Society and the BSB – is not fully aligned. The Law Society’s interpretation suggests that even decisions traditionally made by counsel, such as advising on or entering pleas, may fall within the restricted category, while the BSB has indicated that its existing guidance remains unchanged. This difference in approach has understandably created some uncertainty about how responsibilities are divided in day-to-day practice and how we ensure that we can work collaboratively with our instructing solicitors, paralegals and CILEX colleagues.

The CBA is in active dialogue with the BSB, the Bar Council, and the Law Society to encourage the development of consistent, practical guidance for all practitioners. Our aim is to provide clarity so that members can continue to work confidently, collaboratively, and in full compliance with the statutory framework.

Quality of Advocacy Working Group [QAWG]

At the October QAWG meeting, the MoJ Youth Justice Policy Unit presented their Child Specialist Legal Training proposal to improve the quality of legal representation for children and ensure legal professionals working with children in the youth justice system have the knowledge, skills, and attributes they need to do so effectively.

This includes establishing a Cross-Sector Advisory Board, that would define professional standards for representing children in criminal proceedings and establishing a Child Advocate Specialist Panel – Crime.

The Advisory Board would develop a competence framework, a training curriculum, and an implementation plan. Membership would include leading practitioners, regulators, representative bodies, and others already engaged in this work.

Recognising the importance of including children’s voices at the core of this work, the Advisory Board will explore ways in which this can be facilitated, understanding that what professionals consider ‘what good looks like’ is likely to be different to what a child perceives it to be.

The Youth Justice Legal Centre, the leading source of expertise in youth justice law across England & Wales, which is run by specialist youth justice lawyers, have recently uploaded a short animation that shares a child’s perspective, speaking directly to professionals working in youth justice, that delivers a clear and important message: representing children is not just a job – it is a specialist skill set that must be continuously developed, refined, and updated.

To make this 2-minute animation, the YJLC has teamed with children with lived experience of the criminal legal system. ‘New Skills Unlocked‘ is a call to action – Children need lawyers who:

  • Understand the realities of youth justice, not just the law
  • Take time to explain, prepare and build trust
  • Continuously update their knowledge and skills to advocate effectively
  • Fight for fairness, not just outcomes

This will in turn establish the Child Advocate Specialist Panel – Crime, with eligible lawyers listed on a public register. Over time, it is envisioned that all lawyers representing children will become panel members, supported by contractual, legislative, and financial mechanisms.

An ambitious June 2026 timeline has been agreed to maintain momentum, which will require the Advisory Board to deliver:

  • Defined competence and training standards
  • Approve CPD requirements
  • Create a passporting process for experienced lawyers
  • Implement a public register of panel members

Members of the QA Working Group have given their support to pursue this approach, once agreed with ministers.

Legally Lifelong

Legally Lifelong is hosting a CPD event on 4th November 2025 at 18:30 via Zoom.

The event is about managing a barrister’s practice, particularly how one goes about dealing with mid-trial illness or a bereavement. Dermot Keating KC (a recorder and Deputy District Judge) has agreed to speak and conduct a Q&A session.

The event is worth 1 CPD Hour. It is free to sign up – attendees only need to email [email protected] to book their place.

Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] Website

On 29th October the CPS updated their website, with a view to making it simple to use and navigate, and to demystifying the criminal justice process for victims and witnesses.

Through the re-design, the CPS has sought to make sure that the information shared is accessible and easily understandable and has modified language used as necessary.  This follows sustained user research on who uses the website and what they need, and involved members of the public, victims, legal professionals, police officers and charities. The re-design forms part of the work the CPS are doing to improve confidence in their work, and the criminal justice system.

The legal guidance and policy documents published by the CPS remain accessible on the website, but they are now set out in a separate section for “Prosecutors and criminal justice professionals”. They have been organised into subject sections, rather than just listed alphabetically as before.

The new website can be found here: The Crown Prosecution Service | The Crown Prosecution Service.

Stephen Leslie KC

We were deeply saddened to learn of the sudden and tragic death of Stephen Leslie KC last weekend. Stephen was a Senior Member of the Public Defence Service Advocacy Team, former Leader of the South Eastern Circuit, and Bencher of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn.  He was 78 years old.

Stephen was called to the Bar in 1971 and took Silk in 1993. He had an extremely successful career at the private Bar, defending in a number of complex and high profile cases. He was an active volunteer with Lincoln’s scholarships team, was engaged in the training and development of pupils.

The PDS has said that “an outstanding feature of Stephen’s character was his unfailing kindness and concern for the welfare of his colleagues, which he demonstrated in his sensitive dealings with those he line-managed and his other colleagues. He was actively engaged as a Faith and Beliefs Champion and supported several Mental Health, Wellbeing and Diversity initiatives.”

Our thoughts and condolences go to Melissa and Theodore, and all of Stephen’s family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

Riel Karmy-Jones KC – Chair
Andrew Thomas KC – Vice Chair

 

View more news

Share