Monday Message 13.10.25
Chair’s Message:
FOUR YEARS
- The length of World War One [1914-1918]
- The duration of an American presidential term
- The time until the end date for calling the next election [June 2029]
- The first wave of the Black Death in Europe (1347–1351)
- The time it takes to complete GCSE’s and A-levels
- The duration of an undergraduate degree with a “sandwich year” abroad or in industry
- The time it is now taking for cases to be brought to trial in this country.
Q: When we explain to victims, the accused, and witnesses that their trial will not take place until 2029, are we beginning to normalise this four-year delay?
A: It is certainly easier to say “This is just how it is at the moment — you will have heard about the backlog it’s happening to everyone…” But we must not do this. We need to be both truthful and clear. The backlog, and the delay in your trial, is the direct result of the chronic underfunding of the criminal justice system by successive governments for years.
And it must now stop.
As we prepare to engage with Sir Brian Leveson in the second part of his government-commissioned independent review of the Criminal Courts, the Efficiency Review, we have been reflecting on the multiple failures that have been caused by the short-sighted budget cuts, which have affected not just us at the criminal bar, but also our colleagues on the bench, across the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), defence solicitors, police, probation, prisons and more, giving new meaning to the phrase “death by 1000 cuts”.
It is important to recognise that the pressures we face are mirrored by our opponents in court and by all other areas of the publicly funded legal profession. Only by acknowledging this can we come together, stop playing the blame game, and support one another.
We all share the same goals:
- To do our jobs to the best of our abilities;
- To help give both victims and accused a voice;
- To rebuild this criminal justice system, and make it something of which we can once again be proud.
We are stronger when we work together.
CBA Young Bar Day
A demonstration of how well we can work together took place on Saturday 11th October. Our Young Bar Conference was a phenomenal success. The highest levels of the judiciary came together with circuit leaders, leaders of the profession, and the junior bar to make this an informative, insightful, and inspirational event for both our young criminal bar and those with many more years’ call. We all learned so much.
We are very grateful to everyone who gave their time to make it such a success. Special thanks go to The Rt Hon Lady Justice Whipple, The Rt Hon Lord Justice Green, Mrs Justice Maura McGowan, HHJ Noel Lucas KC, HHJ Rosa Dean, HHJ Emma Nott, Claire Davies KC, Heidi Stonecliffe KC, Benjamin Aina KC, Andrew Thomas KC, Thom Dyke, Emma Fielding, and others who contributed to the event.
This is intended to be the first of many — the beginning of what we hope will become an annual event, celebrating and strengthening the next generation of the criminal bar. And thanks to Aaron Dolan, who as always made sure that everything ran smoothly.
Backlog
At the end of last month, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) revealed that the Crown Court backlog had reached 78,329 cases at the end of June; an increase of 1,518 cases in just three months since March.
Later this week, on Thursday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will provide an update on its own measure of the backlog, applying a slightly different calculation based on the number of defendants in its open caseload. At the end of March, the CPS figure stood at 87,469. Given the MoJ’s latest figures point to a steady rise in new cases coming into the Crown Court, we can expect that the CPS’ measure of the backlog to the end of June will be around 90,000.
In recent weeks, we have noticed with growing alarm that, increasingly across court lists the dates for hearings, including mentions, sentences, committals, and PTPHs. are coming up as “moved due to lack of court time” or just “put back” or “now listed… [at some date in the future, sometimes up to 6 weeks away]”.
All this adds to the backlog. Further, these are public hearings, with public lists, yet no tangible public reasons are provided for these adjournments. Nor do we, the public, know whether these are remand or bail cases — a crucial distinction.
- If remand cases, as undoubtedly at least some must be, they add to the mounting prison population awaiting sentence, which over the past two years has been increasing even faster than the number of defendants awaiting trial. We have no data on whether these defendants will ultimately receive custodial sentences – information that is clearly relevant.
- If bail cases, and the adjourned matter is a PTPH, the incentive to plead guilty is ever diminishing. What bailed defendant ever readily wishes to plead guilty when their trial is at least four years in the future? In that time, much may change: witnesses may withdraw, disappear, or even die.
Is this data being collected by HMCTS? It should be. Without it, questions about court efficiency cannot be properly examined, nor can effective and positive solutions be found and developed.
CPS Data – The Human Cost of Delay
Analysis of current CPS figures reveals the scale of the problem:
- 7,297 prosecutions for domestic abuse resulted in non-convictions due to “victim attrition or other witness problems” in the 12 months to the end of March 2025 -52.4% of all such cases. Of these, 6,624 were identified as victims (47.6%).
- 2,436 domestic abuse prosecutions were recorded as non-convictions due to “evidential reasons”, accounting for 12.6% of all non-convictions in the same period.
- 353 rape prosecutions collapsed due to “victim attrition or other witness problems” in the 12 months to March 2025. Of these, 334 were attributed to “victim attrition”, meaning prosecutions were stopped because ”victims no longer supported, or were unable to support, the case”.
- 102 of those failed rape prosecutions occurred between January and March 2025, accounting for 22.5% of all CPS rape cases classed as “non–conviction outcomes” in that quarter.
- An additional 232 CPS rape prosecutions were “non–convictions” due to “evidential reasons”, accounting for 17.5% of all non-convictions during that period.
We have previously spoken about the human cost paid by victims, witnesses and those accused of crime. There is additional anguish caused when cases are further delayed by trials being pulled from the list or put back on the very day they are due to begin. These delays cause victims and witnesses to lose faith in the system, to withdraw, and to walk away. Defendants, too, may die before their trial is heard.
Trial Readiness
One of the key strategic objectives that the criminal bar, the CPS, defence solicitors, HMCTS, and our judges all share is trial readiness – ensuring cases are properly prepared and able to proceed when they reach court.
Analysis of the MoJ’s most recent data (published last month) reveals:
- 343 trials were cancelled during the first six months of 2025 due to “prosecution not ready”;
- 174 of these trials were cancelled on their first day between April and June 2025 for the same reason;
- 76 of these were sexual offence cases, including 36 adult rape trials.
By comparison, in the whole of 2024, 688 trials of all offences were similarly adjourned, of which 159 were sexual offences including 60 adult rape trials.
Understanding the causes
Disclosure failings are frequently cited as one of (but not the only) cause of delays — and the prosecution is often blamed. However, the reality is more complex and multifaceted:
- Modern trials are often larger and longer than in the past;
- Case papers are far more voluminous and technically more complex;
- The reach and scope of disclosure enquiries has expanded dramatically, and the sheer volume of material is often impossible to predict. How much there is can often only be guessed at;
- Disclosure material can come from multiple third-party sources and may be contained in handwritten, poorly organised, or outdated paper records that require significant time to scan, review, and interpret.
- Initial review is often undertaken by a police officer who may not have enough information about the defence case to identify and anticipate relevant issues that may arise – particularly if the defence statement is unclear or incomplete.
- Shortcomings in defence statements are themselves often the result of an underfunded and overstretched criminal defence system that leaves defence counsel hastily drafting defence statements at court on the day of the PTPH without a proper proof of evidence.
- Police budgetary constraints may prevent a designated disclosure officer from being authorised sufficient overtime to complete reviews promptly.
- Once reviewed, documents must be scheduled for CPS lawyer oversight, adding another layer of delay.
We know the CPS is overloaded, leading to disclosure work often being delegated to junior counsel, who may not be paid for this additional work. Even when a specific disclosure junior is instructed, the time required is frequently underestimated.
Who can predict how long it will take to review 8 boxes of medical records until they have been opened and examined? Moreover, the payment for this crucial task – which removes junior counsel from court and interrupts their principal work and developing practices – is derisory. Disclosure is a critical responsibility and should be remunerated properly.
And this does not even begin to address the problems associated with scanning and uploading vast amounts of material to the Crown Court Digital Case System — or the time wasted trying to locate material once it is there.
Can we improve trial readiness?
Trial readiness depends on deadlines being set – and met. At the PTPH, prosecution and defence should be able to agree with the trial judge on a clear timetable for each stage of the case. Directions must be firm but realistic, and grounded in an understanding of the many moving parts involved. They also depend on resources being available to meet them.
The old habit of seeking unfair advantage, or applying pressure by saying, “There’s no reason they (prosecution or defence) can’t do X within 48 hours… 7 days…” should become a thing of the past.
Proper open communication is essential. We may operate within an adversarial system, but we do not need to be adversaries. Prosecution and defence should be able to have candid discussions about timetables and directions before a case is listed.
There must be greater understanding about the job each has to do. List officers, too, should engage — yet all too often they are reluctant to speak with counsel or liaise with judges ahead of hearings. Judges should be encouraged to accept sensible, limited communication from counsel (with all parties copied in). This does not mean that judges will be inundated with emails. Clear parameters can be set and respectfully followed. It saves considerable court time.
We at the CBA are working with the MoJ, the Lord Chief Justice, the Senior Presiding Judge, the circuits, and the Bar Council to strategise how we can work better together, improve collaboration, working conditions, and ultimately free up court time.
CPS Funding – Prosecution Fees
Trial readiness depends not only on efficiency within the CPS’ internal staffing but on there being enough suitably qualified criminal barristers available to prosecute cases. A fully functioning prosecution capability must exist before any meaningful improvements to efficiency can be made. Victims and defendants alike depend on it.
Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), has made it clear that there are not enough advocates, and the CPS continues to recruit. The pressure on CPS staff is therefore all the greater in the face of rising case volumes and ongoing shortages of both skill and experience – particularly within specialist RASSO (Rape and Serious Sexual Offences) units.
This shortage places even more pressure on the independent criminal bar to get cases trial-ready, as the vast majority of CPS cases are prosecuted in court by self-employed criminal barristers.
In the June Spending Review, the CPS was awarded an additional £96 million, which the government said would “increase the organisation’s funding by more than 10% from 2026 to 2029.” At the time, Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, stated:
“This additional £96m for the Crown Prosecution Service will help protect victims by tackling the backlog, speeding up justice, and unlocking digital developments through AI so we can keep dangerous offenders off our streets — and, importantly, deliver a justice system that serves victims.”
Stephen Parkinson, the DPP added:
“The funding announced will help the Crown Prosecution Service meet the significant challenges of the future while focusing on our number one priority: to reduce delays so victims get justice sooner. This settlement will mean more prosecutors who can charge cases and get them ready for court, bringing more criminals to justice and giving closure to more victims – which in turn makes our streets safer.”
While this funding settlement, and the CPS’ stated aims purport to be designed to address the human resourcing needs and reduce delays, it has not yet translated into any pay increase to the fixed rates for trial work to those criminal barristers who prosecute on the CPS’s behalf, despite extensive representations that we have made to them.
We will be liaising with the Bar Council, meeting with the DPP and wider CPS leadership, to press this point, to ensure that funding increases are passed onto the independent Criminal Bar without whom the CPS cannot fulfil its functions and obligations to the court. We will also encourage Sir Brian Leveson to recognise this issue in the recommendations he makes in Part 2 of his review.
Reduction in Instruction of Silks – Inequality of Arms
The CBA is increasingly aware of a concerning trend in serious criminal cases: where the CPS would once have instructed a silk and a junior barrister to prosecute on the state’s behalf, some CPS regional teams are now instructing either one senior junior, or a silk with no junior support.
This trend has continued despite the CPS having received that increase in funding from HM Treasury. This approach to the instruction of counsel risks the defence, in the most part also funded by the State via AGFS, having access to more senior counsel for the same case and so creates an inequality of arms.
Even where this does not undermine the principle of a fair trial, the resulting imbalance in experience and resources can place considerable pressure upon an under resourced prosecution team.
The CBA is gathering data on this issue region-by-region and offence-by-offence to document the extent of the problem and support our case for change. We ask members to email any examples (in confidence) to [email protected].
Any short-term cost savings that regional CPS teams may seek to squeeze from their external advocacy bills may well come at the expense of serious long-term damage – both to the willingness of the criminal bar to continue providing this essential public service, and to the quality of case outcomes the CPS would like to achieve.
Court of Appeal Ruling on Advocate Immunity
We strongly encourage all members to read the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the case of XGY v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which reaffirms the principle of core immunity for advocates. The judgment can be found here.
We also recommend reading the Bar Council’s article on its intervention in the case: “Will I be liable for what I have said and done in court? Bar Council intervention in XGY” – here.
The judgement, handed down by the Lady Chief Justice (Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill), the President of the King’s Bench Division (Dame Victoria Sharp DBE), and Lord Justice Coulson states at paragraph 30(i):
“[I]t is necessary for the proper administration of justice that advocates, parties, witnesses, judges, and jurors are immune from suit for statements made in court whatever the cause of action, regardless of whether the statement was made maliciously or was irrelevant to the court proceedings. This is known as the core immunity. It is founded on public policy and is intended to encourage freedom of expression and communication in court proceedings in order to protect the proper administration of justice and the interests of justice.”
This judgment provides a welcome reaffirmation of a fundamental principle: that core immunity is essential to the proper functioning of our justice system, safeguarding free expression and effective participation in court proceedings.
Finally –
If the length of this Monday Message reflects anything, it is that there are many extremely important issues at stake for the criminal bar and the criminal justice system at this time. Rest assured that we at the CBA will continue to work hard to address them.
Yours,
Riel Karmy-Jones KC
Chair
The Criminal Bar Association