Monday Message 13.07.26
Let there be absolutely NO doubt: the Criminal Bar Association is opposed to the proposed restrictions on the right to jury trialfundamentally
In this edition:
- A Year On from Leveson Part 1…
- A Message to Andy Burnham MP
- Meeting with Stephen Parkinson, Director of Public Prosecutions
- Two Meetings: with the MoJ Sarah Sackman MP
- MoJ Diversity Statistics
- ** Reminder – The ‘Child Defendants in the Crown Court’ Bench Book
A Year On from Leveson Part 1….
Last week was eventful. This coming week is likely to be even more so as all eyes turn towards our new Prime Minister. Based on the widely held presumption that it is to be Andy Burnham MP, what will he do? What changes will he make? What battles will he choose to fight? And which will be abandoned?
In considering these questions we, and he, may wish to note that last week marked the anniversary of Sir Brian Leveson’s Part 1 Report, published on the 9th of July 2025. Also, of The Criminal Bar Association’s Snap Survey, conducted the week after, which had a phenomenal response from our members, and confirmed the strength of feeling against the core Leveson proposals, particularly the erosion of the right to trial by jury, our “universal opposition” sitting hand in hand with our strong support for the current system, and real concerns about the negative impacts on fairness and justice if taken forward.
The results of that survey can found here. From it, three messages as to the way forward shouted loud and clear:
- increase sitting days;
- improve court efficiency;
- fix the court infrastructure.
So – here we are, one year later. Yes – the cap on sitting days has been lifted, and we applaud the Government for this. But that measure has not yet been able to have the effect it should. Why? Because across the country, courtrooms daily remain shut due to lack of staff, lack of judges, lack of advocates, lack of interpreters, broken equipment, prisoners not being brought to court…. And of course, the lack of air-conditioning. The list goes on.
But rather than fixing things, and making it better, a huge amount of time, and resources have been funnelled away from the fundamental things that would lead to cases being heard more quickly, into an unnecessary battle about restricting the public’s right to be tried by a jury.
What has changed, however, is that our resident judges have risen to the challenge and forged forward on our point (ii) (which was also Leveson’s Part 2) – efficiency. Working closely with criminal barristers, solicitors, CPS, police, and court staff they have shown that with concerted effort, good communication, and sheer hard labour, it is possible to bring the backlogs to heel. We have seen this across the country, with significant falls in just one quarter, including:
- Ipswich – down 10.4%
- Canterbury – down 9%
- Maidstone – down 10%
- Oxford – down 3.1%
- Cardiff – down 6.7%
- Sheffield – down 4.7%
- Newcastle – down 8.3%
- Manchester Crown Square – down 4.1%.
- Preston – down 5.1%
- Nottingham – down 3.1%
- Derby – down 3.1%
A Message to Andy Burnham MP
Andy Burnham MP is the only declared candidate in the election for the new leader of the Labour Party and is certain to become the next Prime Minister. What does that mean for the Courts and Tribunals Bill?
Much has been made of the article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday – “Burnham will scrap Lammy Plans to Curb Jury Trials” here:
which follows from a number or articles along similar lines over the past few weeks. Similar reports have appeared in the Guardian and The Times this weekend.
We are hopeful that this news is correct – but before hope can turn into jubilation, what we are really waiting for is a direct and firm statement from Andy Burnham himself confirming that this is indeed his intention.
The evidence of the past few months is that MPs and Peers have listened to the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to the dilution of the right to trial by jury. Mr. Burnham is a new leader and will have a huge list of national and international issues to address. Why make this, something that is bound to cause further disruption to our crumbling criminal justice system, one of them? Surely he will not want to inherit an unpopular policy which faces strong opposition from MPs of all parties (including his own), near-unanimous opposition in the House of Lords, and in the face of concerns from justice organisations and professions.
It is a shame that the misguided policy behind Clauses 1 to 7 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill has drowned out the importance of the remainder of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 16 would make important changes to the law of evidence in criminal proceedings (extending special measures, extending restrictions on inappropriate cross-examination and extending the scope of bad character evidence of propensity). Those are valuable provisions, in part based on recommendations from the Law Commission, and they have been supported by the CBA.
The Courts and Tribunals Bill has been on hold since the King’s Speech. Parliament will go into recess for the summer on Thursday this week. We hope that does not mean that we will have to wait until Parliament’s return in September to find out the fate of the proposed reforms. Throughout the summer, our Crown Courts will be continuing to work, with new cases being fixed for trial. Judges, HMCTS staff, barristers and solicitors are continuing to work on reducing the outstanding caseload. We all deserve an answer now.
A simple statement – this week – confirming that the new Government has listened to us, and to the evidence and decided to scrap the misguided jury trial reforms would demonstrate commitment towards the work of our criminal courts, and to the criminal Bar. It would provide much needed certainty and would ease the disquiet that many in the legal profession feel. It would allow our Resident Judges, HMCTS staff, and all of us who work in the courts to focus resources on ripping through the backlog. It would help us to begin to return the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales back to what it once was – the finest in the world, with the jury system its beating heart.
In his speech following his by-election victory, Mr Burnham said that that national politics had neglected communities like Makerfield, and that his priority was to ensure that the voices of those communities are heard loud and clear. In our Courts, it is the jury who bring community into the delivery of criminal justice, and the jury who provides the democratic legitimacy for the work we do. Nothing could be more antithetical than to take that power away from our community representatives and give it to appointed judges and magistrates.
Let us not forget:
- ‘Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.’ – Lord Devlin (1905-1992)
- “[It is a] constitutional principle sacred to generations of Englishmen, and later to a new world as well, that men should be tried by their peers, and that judges should not meddle with questions of fact” – Professor Sir J.H. Baker, formerly the Downing Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge.
- “Whenever a man is on trial for serious crime … then trial by jury has no equal.’[ Lord Denning (1899-1999) in Ward v James [1966] 1QB 273]
- ‘The jury trial has been adopted in all the main common law jurisdictions. It is rightly regarded as a bastion of the criminal justice system against domination of the state and a safeguard of the liberty of its citizens. This is an affirmation of human rights principles…. … For the public it is a highly valued part of our unwritten constitution. The present lack of public confidence relates to the defective enforcement of the criminal law both before and after the trial.’ Lord Hope (R v Connor and Mirza [2004] UKHL 2. para. 144)
- ‘Criminal justice in the hands of the people is the basis of freedom. While that remains there can be no tyranny, because the people will not execute tyrannical law against themselves. Whenever it is lost, liberty must fall along with it. . .’ – Lord Erskine (1705-1766)
Mr. Burnham – Will you, before the week is out, before Parliament rises, tell us that common sense has prevailed, and that you are abandoning the ill-conceived reforms that are Clauses 1 to 7 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill?
We are waiting, and we are hoping.
Meeting with Stephen Parkinson, Director of Public Prosecutions.
Last Tuesday, 7th July 2026, we had a meeting with Stephen Parkinson, Director of Public Prosecutions, together with Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council. Amongst the matters we raised and discussed were:
- payments to prosecution counsel for sentencing notes;
- cases where prosecution fees still fall below defence fees (for example terrorism);
- the wasted preparation provisions;
- the instruction of King’s Counsel; and
- training and wellbeing.
The meeting was extremely positive, with Stephen more than once voicing support for the independent criminal Bar, and firmly re-committing to the principle of parity as between prosecution and defence fees. Like us, Stephen will be considering the proposals in the Government’s AGFS fees consultation, which is expected imminently.
Two meetings: the MoJ and Sarah Sackman MP
On Wednesday, 8th July 2026, we had a meeting with the Ministry of Justice to discuss AGFS fees, the proposals for distribution of the “up to £34 million” (which we know includes VAT), the state of our courts, and the letter that we had written on 8th June.
As a result of that meeting, Riel and Andrew were invited to come to speak with Minister Sackman that very evening. It was a very candid and courteous meeting, lasting over an hour.
We give credit where it is due. As we reported in the Monday Message last week, Minister Sackman has promised an increase of £3.5 million per annum in AGFS fees relating to additional and wasted preparation. Details are here.
The Statutory Instrument implementing those changes has already been laid and they will take effect on 28th July 2026.
At a time when most other work in Whitehall has been on hold, we are grateful for the significant effort which it took both Minister Sackman and the MoJ team to get those changes over the line.
Amongst other matters discussed were:
- the implementation of the December 2025 commitment to “up to £34m” (approx. £28m plus VAT) funding;
- the delay in meeting that commitment;
- the Government’s position that “fee changes apply only to new cases from the point at which revised rates come into force. It is not our practice to backdate payments or apply uplifts to existing representation orders, and we do not propose to do so in this instance”;
- the implications for CPS fees, and the principle of effective parity as promised by Stephen Parkinson, Director of Prosecutions;
- the risks and consequences that further delays may engender;
- the matched funding for pupillage commitment;
- future engagement with the criminal Bar.
- our shared aim of having a thriving, expanding criminal Bar to undertake the work in the Criminal Courts, especially following the removal of the cap on Crown Court sitting days.
We recognise that Government roles may be shifting, and so much of what is to come will depend on who is sitting in what seat. However, what is clear is that the Government’s Consultation on how the “up to £34 million” will be applied is coming out imminently. We will be given an advance copy, time to provide a formal response, and will be invited to engage further on the final package and to work with the government to get the best and most practicable outcome.
As previously said – as soon as the full proposals have been published, as soon as we know what the final package contains, as soon as we know exactly what we are dealing with, the CBA will be consulting you, our members, on how you want to proceed and on our response.
Diversity
Last week the Ministry of Justice published the latest annual judicial diversity statistics to April 2026 here. They provide some insight into the composition of the legal professions, judicial holders and judicial appointments over the past year alongside some 10 year trends since 2016.
69% of judges in post in the Crown Courts are aged 50 or over while in the Magistrates’ Courts 81% are 50 or over. Particularly shocking is that of the 3497 judges who sit in the Crown Court in England and Wales, only 43 are black, which is 1.2%. Further, only 1 out of the 124 “new entrants” judges in the last year self-declared as Black or Black British. That is under 1% (0.8%). That 1 new Black or Black British Judge sits in London. No new black judges are recorded as new entrants for the Midlands, the North East, the North West, South West of England nor any in all of Wales.
There were 80 “promotions” of Judges to the Courts in 2026. 2 out of the 80 judge promotions, or 2.5%, self-declare as Black or Black British.
Both of those black judges promoted sit in London. No other black judge “promotions” are recorded across the rest of England and Wales.
By comparison 10 of the “new entrant” judges declared as Asian or Asian British, 91 as White, 5 as Mixed and 1 as Other Ethnic Group. In respect of judge “promotions” 6 self-declared as Asian or Asian British, and 2 as Mixed. That declaration rate was 98%.
A statement published on Thursday from the Lady Chief Justice accompanying the MoJ figures reads (Judicial diversity statistics 2026 – statement from the Lady Chief Justice – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary):
“The judiciary must attract the widest possible range of outstanding talent, drawing on excellence from every part of society to support merit-based appointments. We have encouraged judicial office holders to report their diversity information, and I am pleased that we now have a greater range of data to help target our efforts. This is a positive step.”
The statement from the Judicial office added:
“In January 2026, the Lady Chief Justice launched the Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2026-2030 building on the previous 2020-2025 strategy. To support the work of the strategy, and to signify a commitment to strengthen collaboration, the Lady Chief Justice launched the Judicial and Legal Diversity Board alongside the Lord Chancellor in May 2026.
These efforts are built on a host of work which takes place every year to ensure fair access to opportunities, rather than advantaging specific groups. This includes outreach initiatives, seminars and mentoring schemes.
This year, statistics also include data on magistrates’ recruitment. While this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, the Lady Chief Justice has an interest in building a strong and diverse magistracy.”
We need to do better. We need to encourage diversity at the criminal Bar, which more than any limb of the legal profession deals with people from all backgrounds, religions, and across every socio-economic divide. The profession needs to be built from the bottom up, with focus and support being given to those at the junior end. But encouragement must start even earlier – in schools. Young people must be helped to see that a profession in law is not only desirable, but also possible for them, and something they can aspire to do.
We at the CBA are committed to doing all we can to improve diversity within the profession.
In the coming weeks we will be launching our CBA Black Barrister’s Committee, and we are delighted that Keir Monteith KC (of Garden Court Chambers) has agreed to be its chair. Full details will follow.
CPS Advocate Panel Training Sessions
The CPS Advocate Panel Team are running three virtual training sessions across July and August, via Microsoft Teams, for advocates wishing to join any of the panels or upgrade their level during the September application window (1-30 September 2026).
Each training session will provide an opportunity for potential applicants to hear from a CPS Assessor about how to complete a good quality application. Two sessions will focus on General Crime List applications, and a separate session will be held looking at Specialist Panel applications. The sessions will last approximately an hour and will be held on the following dates:
Specialist Panels – Tuesday 21st July, 5:15pm
General Crime – Thursday 30th July, 5:15pm and Tuesday 4th August, 5:15pm
Anyone wanting to attend the sessions should contact the Advocate Panel mailbox where the team will be happy to assist. The intention is for the sessions to be recorded and uploaded onto the CPS website at a later date for anyone not able to attend.
**Reminder – The ‘Child Defendants in the Crown Court’ bench book
Following the judgement in R v. X, Y, Z [2026] EWCA Crim 845 (the Fordingbridge Rape case) it is worth all who practice in cases involving young defendants reminding themselves of the ‘Child Defendants in the Crown Court’ Bench Book (currently in its 5th edition; formerly entitled ‘Youth Defendants in the Crown Court’). It was referenced by the Lady Chief Justice in the judgment.
The Bench Book aims to gather in one place everything relating to child defendants that a Crown Court judge (and advocate) needs to know. It was described by May LJ in R v ZA as an essential guide. It was quoted from extensively by the Court of Appeal in R v Kamarra-Jarra.
Every Judge dealing with a child defendant in the Crown Court is now expected to be thoroughly well-acquainted with the contents of the Bench Book. As a result, every such judge will expect any advocate dealing with a child defendant in the Crown Court also to be familiar with it. Judicial experience shows that, currently, this is not necessarily the case. The Judiciary are keen to encourage every member of the criminal Bar to access, read and become well versed in the contents of this free resource.
A link to the current edition, written by Ms. Justice Heather Norton and HHJ Gareth Branston, is here. A 6th edition is expected to be published by the Judicial College in August 2026.
Yours,
Riel Karmy-Jones KC Andrew Thomas KC
Chair Vice Chair