Monday Message 07.04.25
So much may change in the next few months. We will be advised of the outcome of the Leveson Review, whether there will be a mid-tier Court dealing with criminal cases where the right to trial by jury is removed. We await the results of the Gauke Review of sentencing and whether its anticipated suggestions that fewer people who commit crime will be imprisoned will be implemented by the government. The results of the Spending Review concern us because we wait to see whether the recommendations of the CLAAB and the joint paper provided to it by the Chairs of the Bar Council and CBA will be respected and acted upon.
Some matters remain the same and appear to be being forgotten in the rush for change. The human beings whose cases remain in the huge backlog of trials within the Crown Court are not being heard. They will be aware from the media how many Crown Court rooms where their trials could be heard lay empty each day. Although they know that there are now 110,000 sitting days, they wonder where those days are being used because they see no difference in their local courts. Those whose cases involve significant offending such as fraud, drugs offences, rape and serious violence will not form part of a new mid-tier Court. They will still be in the backlog. We hope that the Government listens to all those bodies including the Public Accounts Committee and takes positive action now to ease their suffering.
In the meantime, we continue with the results of the CBA National Survey 2025.
What are the main stressors and strains for those at the Criminal Bar?
Our CBA National Survey revealed that 77% of us are caused significant stress and strain by the increased burden upon us of administrative work which was previously conducted by Criminal Solicitors and/or the CPS. We appreciate that there have been significant difficulties in recruitment and retention of staff in both of these branches of the legal profession and a lack of sufficient investment. This has increased the pressures on us all. The huge number of emails received on a daily basis is a major stressor for 60% of us and 48% are stressed by being obliged to complete box-ticking exercises.
The next major stressor for the Criminal Bar is the state of the Crown Courts in which we have to work. Some 63% raised heating, plumbing, leaks, lack of toilets, broken lifts, and problems with technical equipment as causing additional stress. In addition, 49% raised the fact that so many Crown Courts now have no facilities to get a drink or something to eat when working flat out.
Listing
Positive aspects were that 63% considered that reasonable trial timescales were set by the Judiciary and 75% considered that the directions for dates for opening notes and s28 hearings were reasonable.
Difficulties with listing of cases is a major stressor for 61% with 47% raising the issue of warned list cases. In 2024, according to the Survey, 46% considered that their diary availability was taken into account when fixing cases. That means that 54% did not.
Ongoing work is being conducted by HHJ Martin Edmunds which is considering national listing policies and procedures. We have, working together with the Bar Council, provided a group of criminal Barristers, across England and Wales of all levels of calls to have input into that process and we appreciate the opportunity to do so.
Relationships with others
The relentless work-load at the Criminal Bar causes significant stresses and strains to our criminal Barristers. There is far more isolation than ever before. Since the introduction of digital case files there is no longer a requirement to gather in Chambers at the end of the Court day to collect papers for the next day. As a result, face to face collegiality and support has diminished for us all. Our most junior members do not have access to as much direct support from senior practitioners to whom we all used to turn for guidance over a cup of tea at the end of the day. This can breed isolation and anxiety. It can also create heightened emotions. Poor conduct can result from this. A person who fails to treat their colleagues with respect and kindness may be unaware of the significant impact of their behaviour.
Part of our CBA National Survey was to check what the levels of bullying and harassment were within the profession. The Bar Council’s Working Lives Survey received a response rate from 20% of the Bar, but only 17% completed the section on bullying. We wanted to see what the position was in our National Survey for the Criminal Bar and see if comparisons could be made. Again, not all of our respondents completed this section of questions.
There is a strong sense of collegiality at the Criminal Bar. Over 90% felt connected within the Criminal Bar and over 75% felt supported by their colleagues. Many criminal Barristers feel able to speak out about poor behaviour with 85% saying that they would do so. Over 75% felt part of our community and 70% felt that they could confide in others if they struggled with their mental health. Some 86% of the Criminal Bar indicated that they would call out racism, sexism or bullying.
Although some have left the Bar as a result of poor behaviour from colleagues, there were many examples of criminal Barristers acting as allies and active bystanders. Regrettably, 33% had personally experienced bullying, harassment or discrimination in Chambers or at Court from their colleagues. Comparison of poor conduct by years of call of those subjected to poor behaviour demonstrated there was little difference. Some 44% of those called in 2015-2024, 47% in 2005-2014 and 45% in 1995-2004 had experienced inappropriate behaviour. Women amounted to 60% of those subjected to poor conduct, men at 40%. The statistics demonstrate that our Black practitioners are highly likely to have been subjected to poor conduct at 79%, blended ethnicity at 70%, Asian at 55% and 54% of those with a disability. Those who did not attend a Russell Group University were marginally more likely to suffer poor conduct.
Respondents felt that the Criminal Bar had actively worked to create an inclusive and supportive environment. The professional solidarity and support mechanisms in place within the CBA and Chambers are reported as helping to sustain the profession.
The Judiciary are under significant pressures due to the backlog of cases within the Courts and the sheer workload that they face. Many of the additional stressors that we face, late transport of defendants, lack of interpreters, insufficient jurors, crumbling court buildings and facilities, heavy workload, preparing cases which do not go ahead are also stressors for the judiciary. The efforts that we have all made to reduce the backlog have been interrupted and difficulties exacerbated by a constant changing landscape of government policies and announcements of sitting day cuts and late increases. Closed Court rooms when cases could be being heard adds to the mix of misery for us all. We recognise that the Judiciary have to work solidly to get through their administrative and Court work and therefore may also be more isolated than they once were.
The results of our National Survey showed that positive Judicial conduct in recent years had a positive impact for 32% in professional confidence, 33% in advocacy, 30% in their view of the Judiciary, 28% in their sense of belonging to the Bar, 23% in career progression and 10% in mental well-being . Negative Judicial conduct impacted on the mental well-being of 35%. Negative Judicial conduct also created a negative effect for 30% on their views of the Judiciary, on their professional confidence for 29%, advocacy for 15%, career progression for 8%, and a sense of belonging for 13%. That is disappointing, as retention and progression within the profession is assisted greatly by constructive feedback and praise where appropriate. In our survey’s free text box, it was made plain by many that positive judicial action can have a profound effect on confidence and morale. Simply being treated with respect and kindness can make a real difference.
Sadly, poor Judicial conduct seems in fact to be increasing. For those called in 2015-2024 the level of judicial bullying was at 45% which is an increase of 10% from those called in 2005-2014 and up 9% from those called in 1995-2004. When the Criminal Bar was asked whether they had ever experienced bullying or harassment from a Judge, the response was concerning. Some 61.5% said that they had. Of those who were subjected to poor conduct, the majority were male, 40% were White, 27% Asian, 37.5% Black, and 23% of blended ethnicity. For 42%, judicial behaviour was one of our main work stressors and strains.
These high levels are not reflected in the number of complaints made about judicial conduct. The vast majority did not complain at all. Of the 14% who did, 6% felt able to raise the issues within Chambers or to Circuit Leaders, and 3% raised matters with Presiding or Resident Judges. The JCIO was contacted by 1.7% of respondents. There was a concern that much of the poor conduct came from the same judges whose behaviour was well-known but that nothing seemed to change. The perception was the formal complaint mechanisms were ineffective and that making a complaint about a Judge would be harmful to career progression.
The CBA are looking forward to working collaboratively with the Judiciary because we each understand the significant pressures that all those who work within the Criminal Justice System face. We want to ensure that the mutual respect and admiration that we have for each other is demonstrated by us all within the Court environment and outside it. We must all look for ways to reduce isolation and exhaustion and to provide a method of raising concerns to ensure a positive outcome without fear of consequences.
Working relationships with the CPS
In the Survey the Criminal Bar was asked for their experiences when acting as Prosecution Counsel in 2024 on a number of topics. The respondents were given a series of specific matters to consider and asked to indicate if any applied in their case. The potential positive responses were listed first in the survey so as not to immediately attract attention to negative answers, and to improve the reliability of the results.
The Survey revealed that 59% take the view that the CPS properly considers the evidence in the case and 60% state that the CPS makes appropriate charging decisions. Billing was considered straightforward and handled well by 60% of our criminal Barristers.
However, nearly three quarters, 72%, considered that the CPS did not provide a focussed brief. Timely responses to advices were not received by 76% of us. Some 74% found it difficult to contact the CPS. During the trial, 68% said that there was no paralegal provided to assist, and 60% felt that there was insufficient support at the Crown Court.
Sadly, only 40% felt that the CPS valued the work of the Criminal Bar. There were concerns about a lack of respect and a blame-culture.
In the free text section of the Survey, there was widespread frustration at the difficulty of contacting a reviewing lawyer. Part-time reviewing lawyers did not seem to have any form of job-share with a colleague who steps up in their absence.
The difficulties with practical working relationships with the CPS are a reflection of their workloads and the lack of sufficient investment to enable them to have sufficient staff, particularly in general crime units. The comparison between what are seen by the Criminal Bar as the levels of staffing and experience of members of the CPS between specialist units and general crime are a source of frustration. The difficulties have caused many to reduce or remove prosecution work from their diaries.
The Criminal Bar appreciates the commitment of the DPP, Stephen Parkinson, to hold regular meetings with the CBA and to consider how to make the best use of available resources. One very simple means of demonstrating respect for our work would be for the CPS in its external communications, to acknowledge the work of criminal Barristers in the cases that they have prosecuted.
Common Platform
The Criminal Bar appreciate that new systems need time to ensure that they function well. Only 13% of us have never had a problem logging on to the Common Platform with 86% having difficulties frequently (43%) or occasionally (43%). Only 17% find Common Platform easy to use. Payments have been refused for 43% of us when difficulties have occurred in logging on and 75% have had cases not appearing on the list when they are being told that they must sign on.
We will be discussing these findings with HMCTS at our next meeting and will let you know how things will improve moving forward.
Late Delivery of Prisoners
The statistics provided which demonstrate that prisoners arrive on time to Court for the vast majority of cases do not reflect our National Survey results. It is routine, according to 54% of us for prisoners to arrive late, 25% say that this happens often and 18% say it is occasionally a difficulty. Only 2.7% have never had a prisoner arrive late for Court.
Pupils
Many of our pupils have started their second six and are now on their feet presenting cases across England and Wales. We are delighted that they have chosen the Criminal Bar and wish them well in this exciting, but challenging part of their career.
Yours,
Mary Prior KC
Chair, The Criminal Bar Association