Monday Message 09.03.26
Let there be absolutely NO doubt: the Criminal Bar Association is fundamentally opposed to the proposed restrictions on the right to jury trial.
In the Message this week:
- The Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026
- Our Response
- The Fantasy behind the Impact Assessment
- Robert Rinder MBE writes to every MP
- Upcoming CBA Work
- Forthcoming Events
- In Memoriam
The Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026
and Criminal Justice Reform
The Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 was published on the 25th of February. It is now being pushed through the parliamentary process with what can only be described as indecent haste. The second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons is on Tuesday the 10th of March. This rush to the finish line can only be for one reason – to prevent those who have a voice and wish to oppose this radical and Draconian evisceration of the longstanding right to jury trial, from effectively marshalling their opposition.
We may not have a written constitution in this country, but trial by jury is a constitutional matter too important to restrict without proof of urgent necessity. A close examination of the Government’s “Impact Assessment” demonstrates that such proof is lacking.
We are not reactionaries. We are in favour of a package of radical reforms. Good and laudable work to reduce the backlog has already started. For example:
- more sitting days,
- use of ‘Blitz’ courts to identify cases that can quickly resolve,
- quicker transport of remand prisoners to court.
These are among the many measures that can make a real difference now. But this Government seem unprepared and unwilling to let these remedies and efficiencies be tried first, or given time to take effect. And we know they would have effect – that can be seen from courts such as Liverpool and Preston, and circuits such as Wales and Chester. Instead, however, the Government are barrelling in, so set on their plan to destroy a system that is emulated, respected and revered in countries far and wide, a system that overcomes bias and bigotry and is suited to our multicultural society, a system that works and is fair. Is this driven by an ideological antipathy to public involvement in the administration of justice? Or is it just a straightforward penny-pinching measure?
Deploying any nuclear option should only ever be the last resort, and only if all else has failed. But this Government is not prepared to try. And in “selling” their demolition, they continue to spin falsehoods – such as suggesting that their proposals will make things faster for victims of crime. Which they will not. And they do this without any mandate – this was not in their manifesto.
We have a mandate. Our survey last year showed that the overwhelming majority of criminal barristers (approximately 90%) are against these proposals. That is our position, and we shall follow it. Nothing has changed.
For completeness and ease of reference:
The Bill can be read here.
The Government’s so-called Impact Assessment can be read here.
Our Response
We published our response to the measures in the Bill last week. It is worth repeating:
Our fuller Nutshell Guide to the Bill can be found here.
The Fantasy Behind the Impact Assessment
Our full response to the Government’s “Impact Assessment can be found here.
The MoJ insists that the proposed changes to keep more cases in the magistrates will aid its aim for “swifter justice.” Courts Minister Sarah Sackman MP told BBC Radio 4’s Law Programme last week [aired 4 March] that keeping more cases in the Magistrates’ Court rather than being currently tried in the Crown Court would help reduce delay. She claimed that that jury trials “take four times longer than a case in the Magistrates’ Court.” When pressed by Radio 4, and warned of the need to be cautious of “false equivalence”, the Courts Minister doubled down, insisting “it is a fair comparison”. Ms Sackman added “with something like a triable either way offence, we aren’t dealing by definition with the most serious and complex cases”
This is plainly incorrect. There are currently 725 either-way offences, and they include serious violence and sexual assaults. Many involve copious amounts of witness, electronic, and documentary evidence to examine. The Courts minister repeated “We know that those equivalent cases when they are heard in the magistrates are heard considerably faster than when they are before a jury.” How? How can this possibly be a known factor? When there is absolutely no evidence to support this statement?
Over the 12 months to September 2025 there were a total of 19,998 ineffective trials in the Magistrates’ Courts. Analysis of these cases shows that the main drivers to trial ineffectiveness were human capacity shortfalls (shortages both of lawyers and of an available court to try the case), and the plain failure of the CPS to be trial-ready by the scheduled start.
Among the 19,998 ineffective Magistrates’ Court trials for the 12 months to 2025, the recorded reasons for cancellation included::
- 315 because prosecution failed to produce unused evidence
- 1,236 because prosecution was not ready
- 2,141 because another case overran
- 4,267 because of over-listing (insufficient cases drop out/floater/backer not reached)
- 880 because defendant not produced by prisoner escort custody services
- 740 because there was no interpreter
- 172 because of court “accommodation” (cells to courtrooms) or equipment failures
- 136 because no magistrate available
- 650 because of lack of available advocates (227 prosecution, 423 defence)
The Impact Assessment for the Courts and Tribunals Bill shows the implausible assumptions which the Government have made in an attempt to justify their reforms. They claim that their package of measures will remove 24,000 sitting days’ worth of work from the Crown Court and transfer it to the Magistrates’ Court, where the same work will be completed in just 8,500 sitting days. In other words, they are assuming that volunteer magistrates will get through the work three times quicker than the professional judges sitting in the Crown Court.
It is, of course, a complete nonsense. The assumptions ignore the fact that the work which will be re-allocated from the Crown Court is (by definition) more complex and more serious than the minor offences which have previously been tried in Magistrates’ Courts. Much of this cohort of cases will be those where defendants are facing between 1 and 2 years’ imprisonment.
As the Law Society have pointed out, this plan is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, in that it is moving the cases from one overburdened court system to another. According to the impact assessment, the Government’s ambition is to expand Magistrates’ Court capacity by that target of 8,500 sitting days, but they recognise that there is doubt that they will be able to recruit enough new Magistrates to meet that demand. But that is on the basis that they can pull off the trick of magically turning 24,000 days’ worth of work into 8,500 days.
It is pure fantasy.
Robert Rinder MBE writes to all MPs
If members of both Chambers of Parliament are to read one letter ahead of their voting on the Courts and Tribunal Bill then it must be this letter from Robert Rinder MBE, which he has sent to every MP. It is both fabulous and of critical importance. We thank Rob for his clarity and eloquence:
Upcoming CBA Work
We continue our campaign, we continue to work collaboratively with the Bar Council, Circuit Leaders, and all past and present members of the profession:
- Today sees the publication of our joint letter to The Times, with the leadership of the Bar Council, a number of eminent retired members of the judiciary and all circuit leaders.
- Tomorrow the wider Open Letter, spearheaded by the Bar Council, will go to the Prime Minister and the press.
- Tomorrow – Parliament will hold the Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026. The London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA) have organised a gathering outside Parliament to lobby MPs and ensure that the united voice of the criminal law community is heard loud and clear – at 9am, Parliament Square.
The LCCSA is urging colleagues from across the professions to join them.
Barristers, legal academics and others are welcome to attend and stand together with our colleagues in opposition to the Government’s misguided plan to curtail rights to Trial by Jury, and demonstrate our shared commitment to protecting fundamental rights and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
More information can be found via London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA)
- During this week we have a number of meetings tabled to further discuss and intensify our work on:
- remuneration;
- support members of both Houses in Parliament and their safeguarding of the current system of jury trials;
- ensure we continue to have a vibrant, independent Criminal Bar with barristers able to take on both prosecution and defence work;
- continue the constructive work to improve listings of cases and the efficiency of case management;
- press engagement to keep the public informed.
We shall keep the CBA membership informed of progress.
In Memoriam
HH Neil Bidder KC
HH Neil Bidder KC passed away on the 23rd February 2026 having retired as a circuit judge in 2019. It was a mark of the respect and esteem in which HHJ Bidder KC was held that hundreds of former colleagues gathered in person and online for his eulogy at Cardiff Crown Court.
HH Bidder KC was born in Neath in 1953 and read law at Queen’s College Cambridge before attending Dalhousie University in Canada. He was called to the bar in 1976 and joined 33 Park Place in Cardiff where he soon developed a formidable practise in crime and civil. He was appointed assistant recorder in 1994 before taking silk in 1998. He was the head of chambers at 33 Park Place. He became a circuit judge in 2004 sitting mostly on the Wales and Chester Circuit. He was appointed a deputy high court judge in 2007. HH Bidder KC would sit in civil and crime trying the most serious cases from murder to complex medical negligence cases. He was universally regarded as a man of great integrity, humour and generosity. He had a great sense of fun and joie de vivre. HH Bidder KC was a polymath with a love for music, theatre, rugby and cricket. He served as club President for Pencoed rugby club.
HH Bidder KC was first and foremost a family man and we offer our condolences to his wife Madeleine, his sons Rhys and Patrick, and all of his family.
Stephen Meadowcroft KC
Stephen Meadowcroft KC has passed away following a short illness. Stephen was one of the great stalwarts of the criminal bar on the Northern Circuit.
Stephen was born in Altrincham in 1945. He began his career as a police officer before deciding to study law. He was called to the Bar in 1973 and practised for the next 50 years from chambers in Manchester, always specialising in crime. He was a member of Ship Canal House, Old Bank Street and Peel Court. He took silk in 2007 and joined Exchange Chambers the following year.
Stephen was an exceptional jury advocate: unflashy and down to earth in his manner. He had an easy and charming manner, and never fell out with anyone. He was proud of his Victorian-era wig, which he finally hung up in 2024.
Our thoughts are with his wife June, his many friends and former colleagues.
Forthcoming Events
South Eastern Circuit Tim Dutton CBE KC Advanced International Advocacy Course 2026
The 2026 course will take place from Tuesday 25th August until Saturday 29th August 2026 (concluding at 17.00 hrs).
The Criminal Bar Association are once again offering funding for up to five of their members practising as barristers in publicly funded work, covering the cost of attending the course. Each scholarship is £2,000.00 and is available to members who are three years’ post pupillage and under seven years’ call.
The course takes place at Keble College, Oxford, and participants must attend each day of the course.
Full details and the scholarship information are available here.
Events
CBA Annual Dinner at Lincoln’s Inn
Friday 22nd May 2026
Members may wish, before booking an individual ticket, to check with their Chambers Administrator, as many sets arrange block bookings and can add names to a list. Full details are available here.
CBA Spring Conference at the IET, Savoy Place
‘Criminal Justice at a Crossroads’
Saturday 18th April 2026
Full details are available here.
Judicial Reverse Mentoring 2026 –Application Information for Mentors
The Judicial Reverse Mentoring scheme (JRM) fosters greater judicial understanding of the experience of individuals from backgrounds currently underrepresented within the judiciary and the specific barriers they face in accessing a career in law and the judiciary.
The Mentor role on this scheme is open to currently practising legal professionals from backgrounds currently underrepresented within the judiciary with 10 years’ or fewer post qualification/call.
The scheme is aimed at those who would like to take part in making a positive impact on the judiciary by fostering a greater understanding of the experience of individuals from underrepresented groups in accessing a career in law and in the judiciary. The scheme also enables you the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the judiciary.
Full details are available here.
The deadline for applications is 24th March.
Bar Representation Fee
The Bar Council is encouraging barristers to consider paying the voluntary Bar Representation Fee during the authorisation to practise period.
The BRF provides vital funding for work that supports the profession and helps ensure that the Bar has a strong and effective voice. Over the past year, this has included campaigning on the importance of jury trials, responding to concerns arising from the Legal Aid Agency cyber attack, supporting thousands of enquiries to the ethical helpline, revising AI guidance, and leading work on wellbeing and lawyer safety.
Members can find out more, together with promotional materials, on the Bar Council website under Promote the Bar Representation Fee.
View more news