Monday Message 11.05.26

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:

• Election results
• Michael Mansfield KC in the Guardian
• Jo Korner KC in the Times
• Courts Data Casts Doubts on the Need for Jury Reform
• An Example of What We Have to Deal With
• FEES UPDATE – Bar Council / CBA Press Release, CLAAB, and CPS to Pilot GFS Scheme in London
• Match Funded Pupillages
• **Reminder – Guidance on 18 Month Pupillages”**
• Rajiv Menon KC – Allegation of contempt arising from a closing speech – potential implications for the Criminal Bar
• Upcoming Dates for MP Visits to Crown Courts
• The Crime and Policing Act 2026
• Survey on Audio Quality in Courtrooms
• Soteria BSB RASSO training
• **Reminder – The London Legal Walk – 9th of June 2026 – Join us!**

Election Results

The results of the local elections held on 7th May are now all in. The Criminal Bar Association is a non-political organisation, but matters of criminal justice are of the utmost concern to us and our members. We will therefore be watching closely to see how the results, and any decisions taken because of them, will affect our profession, our colleagues, our courts, and all who appear within them.

We will not stop in our Justice Needs Juries campaign. Efficiency, Fairness and Justice for all are the fundamental focus of the criminal bar.

Michael Mansfield KC

The name Michael Mansfield KC is synonymous with civil liberties. He has been described as “the king of human rights work” having defended amongst others: the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six, many of the Orgreave miners, and represented the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday, Stephen Lawrence, and the Hillsborough disaster. It is fitting that he should come forward and defend the criminal bar, and set out his opposition to the government’s proposed reforms and restrictions on the public’s right to trial by jury. Michael first entered the arena about a month ago, writing a powerful article for the Guardian on the 23rd of March: here.

We are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to publish this Update:

“At the time of the second reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Chair of the Bar Council, Kirsty Brimelow KC commented on the letter signed by over 3000 legal practitioners as demonstrating ‘ unequivocal and principled opposition to the restriction of jury trial from not only the Bar but the legal profession as a whole.’

Standing shoulder to shoulder, the Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, has highlighted that recently released official data clearly shows that targeted initiatives within crown courts are working. These, combined with the government’s move to lift the cap on the number of judicial sitting days, has resulted in cases being disposed of more swiftly, and the backlog in key regions of England and Wales already coming at a far faster rate than the MOJ had forecast.

The central plea to Government was to stop before bulldozing our jury system.

This plea has gone unheeded. The vote in favour was carried by 304 to 203 (with 88 Labour MPs not voting). Subsequently in the Public Bill stage, the bulldozer has continued undeterred and ploughed through 12 sessions wherein any amendment of substance was relentlessly voted down by 9 to 6. The Bill therefore remains in tact – nothing short of a Whitehall farce. Little wonder the public at large are disenchanted, to say the least, of how the traditional governing parties have little or no respect for the voters they purportedly represent, the very voters who also end up on Juries displaying a vital critical eye on Government.

The Bill now enters the Report stage followed customarily by the 3rd reading before scrutiny in the Lords. This is a crucial period in which pressure must be exerted to prevent this malevolent and misguided legislation from becoming law. Not only is it unpopular and untested, it is completely unevidenced – somewhat ironic given the two main protagonists are both lawyers. Throughout its passage in Parliament, and before, there has not been a shred of evidence to support its base rationale. In no way has jury trial caused or contributed to the massive backlog of cases in the criminal justice system. This was not the contention of the Leveson review. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, we already have had the experience of restrictions on jury trial in North of Ireland which have not resulted in the absence of a backlog.

A deception is being practised. It must be rigorously and regularly exposed. Hopefully aided by an electoral message being delivered locally this May.”

Judge Joanna Korner KC

Jo Korner KC is the first serving judge to have come forward to express her views on the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Last Thursday, responding by letter to The Times to Sir Stephen Mitchell’s article in the Sunday Times (“Judges are being silenced on vandalism of curbing jury trials”, Apr 26), she wrote:

“Sir Stephen Mitchell is correct when he says that the restriction of jury trials will fail to cut the staggering backlog of crown court cases).

I sat as a judge in Southwark crown court, which is the venue for trials of long and complex fraud cases. At no time did I have reason to believe that juries were incapable of understanding the issues raised by these cases. Moreover, had the cases been tried by judge alone, the delay would have been greater, in that the judge would have to have give full written reasons for the verdict delivered. This would mean that to deliver judgment within a reasonable time, he/she would be unavailable to take new trials.

The assertion that trial by judge alone will reduce the backlog is not supported by my experience at the International Criminal Court, in which I now sit, where trials are held before a bench of judges. In my last case, it took months to produce a fully reasoned judgment.”

Joanna Korner KC, The Hague, Netherlands

Courts Data Casts Doubt on the Need for Jury Reform

Recent HMCTS data demonstrates that the government’s raising of the cap on sitting days (which rose incrementally in April and October 2025), together with the initiatives of resident judges in courts such as Preston, Liverpool, Snaresbrook, Nottingham, Ipswich, and in Wales, have already had an impact in successfully reducing the backlog. This is even before we have seen the effect of the total removal of the cap on sitting days, which only came into effect last month.

Quoting extensively from CBA Chair Riel Karmy-Jones KC, and Bar Council Chair Kirsty Brimelow KC, Jonathan Ames concludes that this shows that the backlog “can be brought down by pressing administrative buttons that do not involve tampering with the historic right to jury trials”. He also highlights the fact that the profession has been waiting for months for details of how the £34 million (in effect £28 million + VAT) promised to boost criminal legal aid would be distributed, and how matched funding for pupillages for criminal barristers would be rolled out.

Read the full article (6th May) here.
But the lifting of the cap on sitting days is not the end of the matter.
There needs to be consistency in application, and all courts should sit on all available days. It is disappointing therefore that JUSTICE, who have been tracking sitting days, in their Newsletter note:
“As of 6th May 2026, 69 of the 532 Crown courtrooms in England and Wales will not be sitting – around 13%.”

An Example of What We Have to Deal With

The following is a letter that was forwarded to Riel by the author. It so well reflects the experiences of criminal barristers day in, day out in our courts, and the complaints we hear daily, that we have decided to publish it here, suitably anonymised, for all our readers, which includes some outside our organisation, to see.

Dear Judge,

As you know, I am instructed as counsel for xxxx ,  a lady of good character facing serious charges, alongside three other defendants. At a PTPH on 24 June 2024, the trial was fixed for 2–3 weeks commencing 5 May 2026, almost two years later. I was instructed shortly after the PTPH, and the trial has been in my diary since.

At a PTR on 9th April 2026 before HHJ xxx, we were informed that the trial would be “a backer at best”. All counsel asked the court to notify the parties as soon as possible if the case was not going to be reached.

In the meantime, all parties prepared the matter for an effective trial. This involved a significant number of hours in what is a relatively complex case. Skeleton arguments were ordered to be served by both the defence and the prosecution in relation to s.78 arguments, and these were duly exchanged. An Opening Note, jury bundle index, and agreed facts were also directed; these were completed by prosecution counsel and considered by the defence.

Nothing further was heard from the court, and the matter remained listed for trial on 5 May. An enquiry was made by counsel for a co-defendant on Wednesday of last week as to whether the matter would remain listed. As I understand it, the court indicated that no confirmation could be given until Friday.

On Friday of last week, we received an email from the court advising that the trial could no longer be accommodated and would be vacated. This was the working day before the trial was due to commence. At the hearing yesterday, the trial was refixed for June of 2028, a date which I am unlikely to be able to do.

As set out above, the matter had been fully prepared for trial by each of the five counsel involved.

In effect, this decision has removed three weeks’ work from each of our diaries. There is not currently sufficient work available for such a period to be readily replaced. To compound matters, there are two other members of my chambers involved in the case, each of whom is now seeking alternative work at short notice. The result is that, instead of working for three weeks, counsel will not be earning. The impact is significant.

No other profession would ordinarily be treated in this way. One can readily imagine a professional engagement arranged two years in advance, with substantial preparation undertaken and the relevant period reserved. To be informed on the day before commencement that the work will not proceed, and may be relisted at a time one cannot accommodate, with no remuneration for the preparation undertaken and little prospect of replacement work, is completely unacceptable.

This is why members of the criminal Bar are leaving in increasing numbers. There is a perception that we are being treated with a lack of regard by the courts. The personal impact in my case was that, rather than enjoying the May bank holiday with my family, I spent the weekend anxious about how I would meet my financial commitments, including my mortgage. I apologise if I appeared emotional when addressing the court, but it is important that the practical effects on practitioners are understood.

Wellbeing at the Bar is a significant issue, and situations such as this contribute materially to ill health. It must have been apparent some time ago that this trial was unlikely to be reached. Had the matter been vacated earlier, there would have been a realistic opportunity to secure alternative work.

I was called in xxx[more than 20 years ago] and remain proud to be a member of the Criminal Bar, but the current position is increasingly unsustainable and is causing me to consider alternative careers.”

This is a familiar example of extensive work done by all parties, work for which they will not be paid. Three weeks where all other professional and personal commitments will have been set aside – three weeks which will now go unremunerated.

We recognise that this is unlikely to be the fault of the resident judge, or the judge dealing with the case – but regardless of fault, it is unacceptable, and this must change.

FEES UPDATE

Throughout this year we have continued to liaise with and make representations as to our fees to the Ministry of Justice, the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board, and the Crown Prosecution Service.  We have not always been able to disclose the detail of those meetings, they being subject to Chatham House Rules, and “sign off’s” higher up the chain of command.

Following the frustration and disappointment that we expressed in respect of the delay in the last Bulletin on 28th April, here: ‘Monday’ Message 28.04.26 – Criminal Bar Association, you should all have seen the recent joint Bar Council and CBA Press release in which we and the Bar Council called upon the government to implement the criminal legal aid increase it committed to 5 months ago instead of wasting time and resource on the restriction of jury trials: here: Bar questions 5-month delay in delivering £34m criminal legal aid injection

We can now share two important updates with you:

• CLAAB – We are continuing to liaise with the Ministry of Justice about the allocation of the £34 million fee increase. We understand that the proposals are now at an advanced stage within Government and that they are working towards publishing a detailed scheme for consultation, which we have been assured will be published as soon as possible.

• CPS – With extended trial lead-in times in London, the CPS have recognised that the point at which Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing fees fall to be paid can be some considerable time after the hearing took place.  To minimise the impact – and in consultation with representatives from the Bar and chambers, CPS London will shortly launch a time-limited interim payment pilot.  The pilot will begin in June 2026 and allow chambers who opt in to bulk bill PTPH fixed fees at regular monthly intervals where trials are listed over 12 months from the PTPH date.  The CPS will be contacting London chambers in the coming weeks with further details and an invitation to opt in to the pilot.  Interim payment represents a significant departure from the established GFS payment trigger points, which typically fall at the end of the case.  The pilot will therefore be closely monitored to assess its effectiveness, the impact operationally on CPS fee teams and, more generally on the accurate and timely payment of fees.

MoJ Matched Funding for Pupillage

We are currently in consultation with a team from the MoJ about the government’s stated commitment to match fund pupillages, with an emphasis on those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The government has promised £1.5 million a year for the next three years to fund up to 100 additional pupillages. It is understood that the aim is to roll this out in a way that will mirror the current COIC (Council of the Inns of Court) Scheme. We are meeting with them regularly to discuss the mechanisms by which this may be done, the consequences, and how the additional strain and potential impact on chambers may be ameliorated. We understand that it is hoped that the scheme will be rolled out in September, with a view to first intakes being in 2028.

It is important that all chambers should begin to consider preparations necessary to take part in this scheme, and to expand their pupil numbers by one to two further pupils. Further information will follow in due course.

*** Reminder – 18 Month Pupillage Guidance” ***

It is important for the future of the criminal bar and for retaining the best talent that we make sure the pupillage experience is positive and supportive for all pupils.

To that end, on the 17th March, the Bar Council Ethics & Practice Committee issued new guidance to chambers who advertise pupillages that last longer than 12 months, and probationary tenancies. That guidance is essential reading for all Heads of Chambers, and members of the Education and Training Committees within Chambers. It can be found here.

The guidance has been drafted to encourage transparency and clarity in information and adverts, to assist prospective pupils to make informed decisions about their pupillage options and to understand why pupillages lasting longer that 12 months may be offered to them. [Note – the term “Third six” is now discouraged by the Bar Standards Board.]

In summary, the guidance includes the following:

• Chambers should consider sharing as much information as possible about probationary tenancies and all circumstances where pupillage may last longer than 12 months;
• The normal duration of pupillage is 12 months; this may be extended to 24 months by application made and approved by the BSB’s Authorisation Framework;
• Chambers should be clear when advertising and offering pupillage whether they expect pupils to complete an additional period of training before tenancy is decided;
• This should be obvious in advertising for the same, as should whether a probationary tenancy is typically required before tenancy is secured;
• It should be made clear whether your chambers commonly offer extended pupillages or probationary tenancies to be completed;
• The reasons why probationary tenancies and / or pupillages lasting longer that 12 months may be offered should also be clear, as should what the benefits for the pupil are;
• How renumeration might change if a pupil is required to undertake a pupillage which lasts longer than the normal duration of 12 months.
• The sort of work a pupil can expect to do if a pupillage is extended or lasts longer than 12 months.
• How a pupil will be supported by a supervisor if their pupillage is extended past 12 months and/or they are offered a probationary tenancy.
• Whether it mandatory for a pupil to continue their pupillage beyond 12 months or whether a pupil may elect to complete the pupillage within 12 months and pursue tenancy elsewhere.

If any questions arise, please direct them to [email protected].

Rajiv Menon KC

Most barristers reading this briefing will have by now become aware of the contempt of court proceedings that have been issued against Rajiv Menon KC of Garden Court Chambers. The proceedings arise out of the closing speech which he made in the first trial of Palestine Action activists in relation to allegations of criminal damage and violent disorder at the Elbit Systems factory in Bristol. The contempt proceedings were initially subject to reporting restrictions because the defendants were facing a re-trial, but became public following the conclusion of the case last week. The Guardian’s report on the contempt proceedings can be found here.

We at the CBA are watching these proceedings closely. This, and the process that is currently being undertaken, is clearly of considerable importance to all at the criminal bar. The case raises significant procedural issues, including whether an action for contempt against a barrister is an appropriate recourse. It also raises issues concerning the effect of a Judge’s directions and the boundaries on comment in a closing speech.

MP Visits to Crown Courts

The recent MP visits have been extremely successful.

Swansea Crown Court on 17th April – organised by Chris Rees KC and the Wales and Chester Circuit, Ben Lake MP was met and hosted by Craig Jones of Iscoed Chambers. Following discussions and a tour of the court Ben left engaged, and very supportive of the criminal bar.

Wolverhampton Crown Court on 1st May – organised and hosted by Harpreet Sandhu and the Midland Circuit, Warinder Juss MP attended.  Warinder was able to hear from a mixture of junior juniors and some who were more seasoned.  He left understanding precisely what the Bar perceives to be the causes of delays in the Crown Court and the firm message that juries are in no way to blame.

Upcoming dates are as follows:

• 20th May, 12:45-14:00 – Liverpool Crown Court – Northern Circuit – Samantha Hillas KC
• 22nd May, 12.45-14:00 – Northampton Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC;
• 12th June, 12:45-14:00 – Nottingham Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC;
• 26th June, 12.45-14:00 – Northampton Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC;
• Date TBC –  Hove Crown Court – South Eastern Circuit, Claire Davies KC;
• Date TBC – Birmingham Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC.

Please contact your Circuit Leaders if you would like to attend and assist.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026
The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 received Royal Assent on 29th April 2026. The Bill has been described as “the Labour Government’s first big intervention in the field of criminal law, policing powers, and public order management in the United Kingdom”. And yet, its passage into law has passed almost under the radar.

In summary, the Act’s stated aims are to:

• tackle the epidemic of serious violence and violence against women and girls that stains our society
• equip police with the powers they need to combat antisocial behaviour, crime and terrorism

Measures described as being designed to “take back our streets” include:

1. Cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour that blights our streets by:
   • introducing respect orders to better enable police and others to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour
   • introducing a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker
   • repealing section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which downgraded the police response to so-called low value shop theft
   • increasing the maximum penalties for offences relating to the sale of weapons whilst introducing a new offence of possessing a bladed article with intent to use unlawful violence

2. Giving the police the powers they need to better tackle criminal activity by:

• taking tougher action on drugs through an expansion of drug testing on arrest
• giving the police the powers they need to tackle theft by creating a new power to enter a premises without a warrant to search for and seize stolen goods, such as phones located using GPS tracking technology
• giving the police greater access to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency database to identify criminals
• banning articles used to commit serious crime such as SIM Farms and electronic devices used in vehicle theft

3. Rebuilding public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system by:
   • giving chief offices of police forces the right to appeal the result of misconduct boards to the Police Appeals Tribunal
   • granting firearms officers subject to criminal proceedings anonymity up to the point of conviction

4. Tackling violence against women and girls by:

• strengthening the management of offenders in the community and introducing enhanced notification requirements on registered sex offenders, including a bar of them changing their names where there is a risk of sexual harm
• giving victims of stalking the right to know the identity of the perpetrator
• introducing a new criminal offence of administering a harmful substance (including spiking)
• criminalising pornography depicting strangulation or suffocation and so called ‘incest porn’
• criminalising the making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply of so called ‘nudification tools’
• strengthening the law around non-consensual intimate image abuse by creating new offences of “screenshotting” an intimate image without consent, allowing courts to make deletion orders for non-consensual intimate images, and placing new duties on online platforms to ensure such images are taken down within 48 hours

5. Protecting children and vulnerable adults by:

• implementing recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse including by introducing a new duty to report child sexual abuse
• creating new offences of cuckooing and child criminal exploitation
• introducing new offences related to the taking of intimate images without consent
• making grooming behaviour a statutory aggravating factor
• introducing a power to issue statutory guidance to tackle honour-based abuse

6. Ensuring the police and intelligence services have the powers they need to protect the British people from terrorism and hostile state threats by:
   • introducing a new youth diversion order, helping to manage the increasing number of young people arrested for terrorism-related activity
   • implementing other changes to terrorism legislation recommended by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

This new Act should be read most carefully. See here: Crime and Policing Act 2026 – GOV.UK.

Survey on Audio Quality in Courtrooms

James Baines is trying to obtain an overall view of the quality of sound within court rooms from the perspective of the Bar.

Could we please ask you to assist by completing the below survey.

Soteria Pilot Study Training – City Law School

As part of the post-charge Soteria pilot study (labelled ’Soteria in the courtroom’ by government/the press), City University School of Law is offering the same as previously provided within Operation Soteria to specialist RASSO police officers and the CPS to the criminal bar.
The content relates to sexual offending and how to improve RASSO prosecutions. It is open to any barrister who is practicing or intending to practice in this area, both prosecuting and defending.

The training is delivered by Dr. Patrick Tidmarsh, who has a standing slot on the Judicial Colleges’ ‘sex ticketing’ course for judges, and who co-developed the training for the police and the CPS. He has an international track-record of being an expert on sexual offending and applying that knowledge to criminal investigations. The course advert is here.

The training is free, and will take place in-person at the City Law School in London, across 3 sessions, on the 26th of May, 16th and 17th of June, from 17:30-19:00.

The sessions build on one another, and participants are encouraged to attend all three sessions.  Participants will thereafter be asked to complete a survey with feedback on the training, and feedback given during the sessions (anonymized, and entirely voluntary) will be included in the findings on the pilot with regard to the usefulness of this Soteria training approach to barristers.

Register for the course here.

Please only sign up if you are able to attend in person. Spaces are limited, but if demand is high, they may put on a second course. Names of those who are unsuccessful will be added to a waiting list.

*** Reminder – London Legal Walk, Tuesday 9th of June 2026 – Join the CBA Team ***

For over 20 years, the London Legal Walk has supported access to justice by raising vital funds for legal charities and Law Centres. Now generating over £1 million each year, these funds play a crucial role in keeping frontline free legal advice services open and accessible to those who need them most.

This year, members are invited to join the CBA team, and take part in this important and enjoyable event, alongside thousands of others from across the London legal community.  If you would like to join us, please email our secretary Matilda Robinson-Murphy on [email protected].  We have some T-shirts available, in varying sizes, so please let us know your size and we will do our best to reserve one for you.  It is a fun event, and a lovely opportunity to come together, followed by the traditional street party on Chancery Lane.
If you are unable to participate in the walk itself, do consider making a donation – or indeed doing both. Every contribution makes a real difference.

View more news