Monday Message 16.03.26

We hope that despite the turmoil and uncertainty of our profession and our times, ALL – whether mother, father, or child – were able to put down their work for at least some of the day on Sunday to celebrate and be celebrated.  

 “The administration of justice should be above politics. Jury trial is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built in defence against establishment and administrative power.”

Sir Geoffrey Cox KC, 10th March 2026

Let there be absolutely NO doubt: the Criminal Bar Association is fundamentally opposed to the proposed restrictions on the right to jury trial.

What we are not against is improving the system for complainants, victims, and accused, or working to bring cases of violence and sexual assault before the courts more swiftly. These are two separate and unrelated propositions.

In the Message this week:

• The Work of the CBA
• The Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026
• The Debate in Summary
• The Resulting Votes and What This Means
• The Government is Hijacking Vulnerable Victims
• Next Stages of the Bill
• Next Steps for the CBA, what we can do, and recent impactful letters from Black Lawyers, Flora Page, and retired Judges;
• Institute for Government Report – 10^th March 2026
• Forthcoming Events
• And Finally…. An omen from Cheltenham?

The Work of the CBA

In the last few months, the Criminal Bar Association have been working flat out, preparing not only our response to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but continuing with the daily work of representing our members on all fronts, from Court improvements to legal issues such as the age of criminal responsibility, to remuneration. Indeed, hardly a day has gone by without multiple meetings on a multitude of topics.
The most important has however been the Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Commons last Tuesday, the 10^th of March.  Here we briefly set out what we have been doing over the past few months. We have been engaged in the following:

• meetings with Sir Brian Leveson and his team;
• publication of our support for the recommendations in Part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of the Criminal Courts (‘the Efficiency Review’);
• engagement with the MoJ and senior judiciary over the implementation of the Part 2 recommendations and other Crown Court reforms;
• meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy MP, and Justice Minister, Sarah Sackman MP;
• meetings with senior officials of the Ministry of Justice;
• meetings with MPs and Peers in Parliament;our Chair Riel Karmy-Jones KC has given evidence to the Justice Select Committee on the issue of Jury reform, alongside Kirsty Brimelow KC, Chair of the Bar Council, and Cassia Rowland of the Institute for Government Research;
• regular engagement with the Bar Council, and Circuit Leaders;
• daily contact with the media;
• interviews and briefings to all national newspapers, across the political spectrum;
• been featured and quoted in the Times, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Daily Express, Independent, the Financial Times, The Evening Standard, Politico, and  most leading regional and local papers across England, Wales and the rest of the UK and briefed many more outlets to explain facts and issues around the restriction of jury trials.
• spoken across a focused set of broadcasts including the BBC on TV and radio including Radio 4, BBC 5 Live, BBC TV news, LBC, Talk Talk, Sky, Times Radio, GB News, ITV;
• increased our online presence, all of which has generated significant traction with MPs;
• prepared a written briefing document, sent out to all MPs;
• worked with the Bar Council and Circuit Leaders on the “Write to your MP and the “Justice Needs Juries” Campaigns;
• produced written responses to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and a commentary on the Government’s Impact Assessment;
• provided further evidence to the Justice Select Committee of the House of Commons’
• coordinated the letter to the Times published on 9th March, the day before the debate – see here.
• worked with the Bar Council in respect of the Open letter to the Prime Minister, signed by over 3000 members of the profession, published on the very day of the second reading – Tuesday the 10th March – see here;
• Liaised with the LCCSA and supported their day of protest on the 10th of March;
• Summitted further documents to the Judicial Select Committee in respect of the Courts and Tribunals Bill;

And all this has sat alongside our other ongoing work across this period, which has included:

• Regular meetings and submissions in respect of remuneration, including meetings with the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board [CLAAB], and the Bar Council in respect of AGFS fees;
• Two meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson KC;
• Meetings with CPS officials over prosecution fees;
• A meeting with the new Commissioner for Conduct, Dame Maria Miller;
• Regular meetings with the Crown Court Improvement Group, the Legal Professional Body Court Recovery Update Group, the Best Practice in Domestic Violence and Abuse Cases Group, and the Child Advocacy Improvement Group.

The Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunal’s Bill

Tuesday 10th of March saw the second reading of the Courts’ and Tribunals’ Bill, which was accompanied by a full debate in the House of Commons. 48 MPs spoke, including the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor David Lammy MP, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services,  Sarah Sackman MP.

The Bill passed despite an almost unprecedented level of opposition from the Government’s own benches, including 10 MPs voting against and 88 abstaining. As many commentators have said, this will make it very difficult for the Bill to progress into law with its controversial aspects intact.  Considerable credit should go to those, both inside Parliament and beyond, who have campaigned relentlessly against the assault on trial by jury.

The Bill is a story of two halves. Clauses 1 to 7 are highly controversial, and would result in fundamental changes to the system of criminal trials in England and Wales. These are the provisions which would create a system of Judge-alone trials in the Crown Court, a massive expansion on the powers of the Magistrates Courts to allow them try more either-way offences, and the abolition of the automatic rights to appeal to the Crown Court.

By contrast, Clauses 8 to 16 contain largely welcome reforms to the rules concerning the admissibility of evidence relating to sexual history and domestic violence, and also expanding the range of available special measures. It may be no coincidence that the Government has ensured that these positive provisions are hitched to the controversial aspects of the Bill, making it more difficult for MPs to vote it down altogether.

Given what we have set out above, it was extremely heartening to all of us at the Criminal Bar Association to hear so many of the speeches in the House of Commons quoting directly from the arguments, submissions and letters that we have produced, both individually and in concert with the Bar Council and the Circuit Leaders. The number of direct lifts was unprecedented.

The Debate in Summary

On behalf of the Government, David Lammy set out their stall by arguing that the proposed reform of jury trials and the retention and extension of work in the Magistrates’ Courts is necessary to bring down the backlog, reduce the delays in the Crown Court, and improve the criminal justice process for victims. They relied heavily on the position of victims of sexual offences, emphasizing that while the average waiting time for a trial is 255 days, where the allegation is one of rape, it is 423 days. [We all know this discrepancy is not down to juries but is largely because most defendants in sexual offence cases are on bail, and the custody time limit legislation competes with the principle of swift justice]. They also highlighted the investment which is being made and the efficiencies which are planned, but argued that structural reform is required as well.

A number of questions were asked of David Lammy, including about the Lammy Review and the perceived shift of position on jury trials, the 41% successful appeals from the Magistrates’ Court, the Government’s extension of Magistrates’ sentencing powers (over and above what was proposed by Sir Brian Leveson), the transfer of the burden of cases to the also buckling Magistrates’ Courts, and issues with the crumbling Court estate and prison delivery services. Many of the questions were simply not answered, or buried in flummery, with David Lammy closing his submissions with a plea to MP’s to support the Bill, and “be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country”.

Nick Timothy MP, for the Conservatives, citing Magna Carta lead the charge of opposition saying that the Bill was being rushed through, without consultation, on an abbreviated timetable which does not recognise the radical and revolutionary nature of the changes proposed. He highlighted the Government’s lack of mandate, pointed to the IFG’s report, the lack of proper modelling to support these changes, and quoted the CBA’s statement that the Impact Assessment is no more than “meaningless verbiage”.  He called Lammy out for changing his position since his 2017 Review, and pointed out that Labour have been pushing for similar reforms since the 1990’s. He quoted HH Geoffrey Rivlin on the significance of the proposed change, and the lack of evidence to support it. He also set out the analysis which shows that the changes would have a minimal  impact on delay, and the dangers of Judge-only trials, including the additional burden of producing reasoned decisions, a potential increase in appeals and decrease in convictions, and the problem of how judges will deal with reviewing inadmissible evidence. He concluded that the changes are not just, not thought through and are not going to make the Courts more efficient.

Karl Turner MP began by taking the statesmanlike approach, to congratulate David Lammy on his achievement in getting the biggest investment in the CJS for decades (£2.5bn). However, he then turned to argue that key parts of the Bill are “unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary”, saying that whilst some parts of the Bill are “good” [presumably the victim measures] – the proposed changes to jury trials are too much.   Nonetheless, he said that he had been involved in what he considered to be a “robust and honest” discussion with David Lammy, who had agreed to allow one of the Labour opponents (or rebels) to sit on the public Bill Committee. He said that he had therefore agreed to abstain because better progress can be made to get rid of the worst parts of the Bill at the amendment stage.

Jess Brown-Fuller MP set out the Liberal Democrats opposition to the Bill. She acknowledged the current backlog is unacceptable and emphasised that the concerns over this and the effects of systemic underfunding were shared. However, she was firm in saying that the Bill was targeting the wrong issues, and that juries are not the cause of the problem. She highlighted the impacts of the increase in ineffective trials, the reduction in the number of sitting hours per day and the inefficiencies such as PECS failures, and the fact that an excessive burden will be placed on Magistrates’ who themselves have a backlog despite the fact that they do not use juries.  She highlighted the opposition of the CBA, the Bar Council and other legal professionals, quoting Joanna Hardy-Susskind (of Red Lion Chambers) and Robert Rinder (of 2 Hare Court).  She said that the Liberal Democrats believed that there are alternatives, for example, they suggest the use of ‘half day’ courtss, allowing two trials per day to operate, and potentially attracting retired Judges back to preside.

Andy Slaughter MP (JSC chair) indicated cautious support for some of the measures but was concerned about the ability of the Government to deliver on the plans. He raised concerns about the limited availability of legal aid in the Magistrates’ Courts, and whether the targets for recruitment of Magistrates, DJs and legal advisers were realistic.

In a speech worthy of an Oscar nomination, Sir Geoffrey Cox KC declared his proud affiliation to the CBA and spoke with passion drawing from his 44 years of experience as a criminal barrister. He forcefully argued that juries strip away prejudice of all kinds, saying: “The administration of justice should be above politics. Jury trial is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has have invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built in defence against establishment and administrative power.” He pointed out that in research the wisdom and capacities of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time, warning that when the institutions of government are under attack, “now is not the time” to take away the citizen element from the legal system. For those who haven’t seen it, his superb speech can be watched here. 

Several Labour MPs supported the Bill. Natalie Fleet MP gave a moving and passionate speech referencing her own experiences and arguing that this was the Government “stepping up for victims”. She said that this debate was about “victims against the establishment” and that reform was necessary to rebalance power between victims and perpetrators, and to get fast justice. [However – again there was a plain disconnect between the two issues (i. the Government’s proposals to restrict of jury trials, and ii.  the accepted and acknowledged need for swifter justice for victims of sexual offences)].

Taking the opposite stance, Charlotte Nichols MP bravely revealed for the first time that she is a rape survivor. She spoke of her personal experience, waiting 1,088 days before trial. She opposed the Bill on the grounds that it will not deliver the changes which are required, citing the IFG’s predicted 1 to 2% improvement, several years down the line. She said that victims’ experiences were being ‘weaponised and used for rhetorical misdirection’. She highlighted that juries are more diverse, and that women from minorities backgrounds may be less willing to step forward to complain. Charlotte Nichols’ courageous speech is here.

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst also gave an excellent speech, drawing on his past experience at the Bar, to argue that juries do not cause delays, and are up to the complex tasks they are given. He pointed to the incredible burden that will be placed upon the Magistrates’ Court, and on Magistrates,  for which they may not be prepared. Like others, he said that the Bill is being rushed through Parliament without nearly enough scrutiny.

Sarah Pochin MP for Reform highlighted their opposition to the changes. She spoke from her 20 years experience as a Magistrate. The problem with the backlog is not down to delay by juries.

Tony Vaughan KC MP largely focussed on the lack of diversity in the senior judiciary, and the need for adequate safeguards.

Kim Johnson MP highlighted her principled opposition to the Bill. She cited both the Lammy Review and research by Professor Cheryl Thomas which shows that verdicts by juries are not affected by ethnicity. Only 10% of Crown Court Judges are from ethnic minorities, and only 1% are black. She referred to her visit to Liverpool Crown Court with the CBA, and the example it has set. She said: “Justice needs juries. We must defend them.”

Liz Saville-Roberts MP set out her opposition on behalf of Plaid Cymru. She argued that this is not the solution to reducing the Crown Court backlog. She highlighted the fact that the proposals are being imposed on Wales when the backlogs there are much lower and appear to be falling.

The transcript of the debate is available here, and the full proceedings can be watched here:  Parliamentlive.tv – House of Commons.

The Resulting Votes and What this Means

Ayes – 304, all Labour party members;
Noes – 203, from across all parties, with 10 Labour MPs voting against their own Government.
Abstentions – 142, of which 88 were Labour MPs.

The full voting record can be found here.

This means that the Bill has been passed and now moves into the next stage. This does NOT mean that the battle has been lost. Although the Bill survives, the voting represents a huge blow to the Government’s attempted attack on trial by jury.

The Bill will now go to a full Parliamentary Committee, which will include at least one Labour Party member who disagrees with the jury provisions. The Committee stage will give the opportunity to separate the objectional parts of the Bill from the parts which have widespread support.

That Parliamentary Committee will hear evidence across about 5 days. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Kirsty Brimalow KC, Claire Davies KC, Samantha Hillas KC, Keir Monteith KC and others have already been called to give evidence.

It was never expected that the Bill would be quashed at the stage of the Second Reading – particularly when half of it contains largely sensible measures that relate to the improvement of the justice process for complainant victims which, bar some comparatively small details, the CBA has little issue with.

The Government is Hijacking Vulnerable Victims

The Government is doing some excellent work on tackling violence against women and girls. But they demean that when they hijack the cause of those victims to justify measures which are unjust and unworkable.

One might think that attaching the jury reforms (Clauses 1-7) to the few unrelated victim improvement reforms (Clauses 8-16) was something of a cynical exercise, a tactic so that those who spoke out against the Bill could be sidelined, by being accused of being “against victims”, an accusation we have heard resounding across the chamber, just as much as the fallacious claim that the jury reforms will improve the position of victims in the trail process. Both we, and a great many MPs across all parties, know they won’t.

Otherwise, why were these reforms not included within the Victims and Courts Bill, described as “a Bill to Make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system; about the functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; and about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”, which has already reached its third reading, and appears to be passing smoothly through Parliament?

It is ironic that by ‘hitching’ victims to their wagon of these reforms, the Government is in fact delaying measures that would improve the trial process for them.  An interesting comment on this can be found in this Times Article by Hadley Freeman  here.

There are other more effective things that the Government could do If they genuinely wanted to tackle the issues of swift justice for complainant victims.

For example:

• dedicate courts at every Crown Court centre to clearing the backlog in RASSO cases.

• Increase the incentives for early resolution, including the percentage discount for Guilty Pleas, as the CBA has already recommended.

• Make provision so as to allow for certain offences to take precedence over custody cases, at least until the backlog has been resolved.

These are measures that we suspect the Criminal Bar would be in favour of, and keen to assist with.

Next Stages of the Bill

We currently understand the next stages of the Bill to be as follows (with thanks to Archie Jacobs of the Bar Council who assisted with the preparation of this table):

Justice Select Committee: Legislative Scrutiny, Oral Evidence	Tue 17 Mar* 1430 – Claire Waxman (Victims Commissioner) Tom Guest (Director of legal policy, CPS) Richard Atkinson (former Law Soc president) Keir Monteith KC (Garden Court Chambers)
Nomination of Public Bill Committee members	Wed 18 Mar
Committee Stage starts	Wed 25 Mar
Public Bill Committee Oral Evidence	Wed 25 Mar 1400 – KBKC + RKJKC 1425 – SHKC + CDKC
Parliament Easter Recess	Thu 26 Mar – Mon 13 Apr
Line-by-line Consideration	Tue 14 Apr (AM & PM sessions) Thu 16 Apr (AM & PM sessions) Tue 21 Apr (AM & PM sessions) Thu 23 Apr (AM & PM sessions) Thu 28 Apr (AM & PM sessions)
Committee Stage ends	Thu 28 Apr
Parliament May Day Recess	Thu 30 Apr – Tue 5 May
Local Elections	Thu 7 May
King’s Speech*	Tue 12 or Wed 13 May

* Once the date for King’s Speech is confirmed, Parliament will prorogue for a few days prior. We will keep you updated on when this is.

Sir Brian Leveson is no longer giving evidence; he having recused himself.  That will spare Sir Brian of the difficulty of answering questions about the Government’s disregard of many of his recommendations, including the creation of a CCBD bench of one judge and two magistrates, retaining the right of election and maintaining the 12 month maximum sentence in Magistrates’ Courts.

Next Steps for the CBA

As stated above – the battle is not over, the fight continues.

But we need to remember that this is a marathon, and not a sprint, and we need to consider with care every step we take, and ensure that we are prepared, but without providing ammunition with which our opponents can call for us to be ignored with which they can call for us to be ignored, and falsely claim that the Criminal Bar is  “against change, against modernisation, and only in it for ourselves, only interested in money”.

What we can do:

• Continue with the write to MPs campaign – having spoken to a number of MP’s, it is clear that not enough of us have written. Even if you have, please do it again, and please speak to and encourage others outside the profession to think carefully about the proposed reforms and also write to express their concerns.

• Continue to invite your MPs to court and meet them there – there was a really strong correlation between those who visited Crown Courts with their barrister constituents, and those who abstained from the vote to push the debate to the next stage. These meetings work.

• Continue to support our colleagues in any protests that are organised, demonstrating that we are united in our opposition.

• Continue to write to the media, to express your views and concerns. Contact us at the CBA if you would like help with this – it works.  See for example the following recent impactful letters:

• The Black Lawyers letter, contributed to by Keir Monteith KC; Jason Lartey, president, London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA); Nneka Akudolu KC; Garry Green KC; Shina Animashaun; Letitia Duffus; Michael Etienne; Miranda Grell; Leon-Nathan L.; Danielle Manson; Thalia Maragh; Mark Robinson, and many more – published in The Times on 16th March here.

• HH Nic Madge’s letter published in the Guardian on 16th March here.

• HH Gary Burrell KC’s letter to the Times published 16th March here.

• Flora Page KC’s letter published in the Times on the 12th March, triggering the article “Postmaster’ lawyer quits over David Lammy’s ‘tyrannical jury reforms” here.

The CBA is doing more. Amongst other things, we have already begun the process of compiling a short sharp survey of the membership to gather members’ views, which can be distributed and turned around very quickly, when and if that becomes necessary.

Institute for Government Report – 10th March 2026

Cassia Rowland, for the Institute for Government [IFG] has produced a new report which was published on the 10th of March, on the morning of the debate. In summary, the report sets out the IFG’s analysis of the Government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill and associated impact assessment. It finds:

• The reforms risk prioritising speed over fair justice by moving thousands of more serious cases into magistrates’ courts and severely restricting rights of appeal.

• The government’s modelling approach is sound, but projected savings from the government’s court reforms remain highly uncertain.

• The reforms imply a 10–15% increase in demand on magistrates’ courts, which they will struggle to cope with in practice.

• Structural reforms are likely to impede attempts to improve productivity and may make the situation worse in the short- to medium-term.

• Pressure to move through cases quickly could increase the risk of ‘rough justice’ and serious mistakes being made.

The report is excellent, and worth reading in full. It can be found here.

The second Mark George KC Memorial Lecture:

Garden Court North Chambers will be hosting this lecture on Tuesday 21st April at the University of Manchester, exploring the topic of wrongful convictions, which Mark campaigned for extensively.

From Chambers, Pete Weatherby KC, Anna Morris KC and Mira Hammad will be speaking, alongside Matt Foot (Director of APPEAL), Professor Claire McGourlay (University of Manchester), and Chris Peace & Kate Flannery (Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign).

Within the umbrella of wrongful convictions, speakers will discuss on recent miscarriages of justice, the Government’s proposed changes to the right to trial by jury, and the 1984 Orgreave attacks following this year’s announcement of a public inquiry into police misconduct towards picketing miners at the Orgreave coking plant. Mark campaigned tirelessly for such an inquiry. Please book your ticket here.

And finally…

Is it an omen? We noticed that a horse named “Johnny’s Jury” won one of the prestigious races at the Cheltenham Festival last week – the Albert Bartlett Novice Hurdle.

Johnny’s Jury overcame odds of 20-1 to win. According to the Racing Post, he trailed the rest of the field almost until the end, but he was simply biding his time. With only the last few fences to go, he swept through the field to win by an impressive length-and-a-half.

Never underestimate the strength and resilience of a Jury!

Yours,

Riel Karmy-Jones KC         Andrew Thomas KC
Chair                                     Vice Chair

View more news