‘Monday’ Message 28.04.26

In this edition:

• **Stop Press** – Congratulations….
• Sir Stephen Mitchell
• The ‘Bulk Hiring’ of Magistrates
• CLAAB
• The CBA Spring Conference
• In Memoriam – John Jones QC, Mark George KC Memorial Lecture
• **Reminders – Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training, Reporting PECS delays**
• The London Legal Walk – 9th of June 2026 – Join us!
• Upcoming Dates for MP visits to Crown Courts
• Criminal Justice Matters Podcast – Martin Shaw.

**Stop Press** – Congratulations….

Our heartfelt Congratulations go to Claire Davies KC, Leader of the South Eastern Circuit, who has been elected as Vice Chair of the Bar Council for 2027. Claire will join Heidi Stonecliffe KC, elected as Chair for 2027 following her successful time as this year’s Vice Chair, and Lucinda Orr who has been re-elected as Treasurer.

All three have been working closely with the CBA and alongside Kirsty Brimelow KC the current chair of the Bar Council, in our joint Justice Needs Juries Campaign, and we know how committed they are to continuing that work into next year.

They will be a wonderful team!! 👏

Sir Stephen Mitchell in The Times

“I was a judge. We must not be silenced over the vandalism of juries”.

Sir Stephen Mitchell was not just any judge.  He was one of the foremost criminal lawyers, practitioners and judges of his day. For over 17 years the editor of Archbold, at the Bar he advanced to become First Senior Treasury Counsel, at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), before becoming a Crown Court judge, sitting at The Old Bailey where he presided over many notable trials. He was then elevated to a High Court Judge and worked alongside Lord Igor Judge at what was then the Judicial Studies Board. He is someone whose experience and knowledge of our criminal justice system is unparalelled.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Sir Stephen discusses the dangers of scaling back trial by jury. He says: “The proposals, a form of legislative vandalism, constitute a damaging and unwarranted dismantling of a system that has withstood the test of time and undoubtedly retains full public confidence.”

The article discusses the fact that serving judges have not commented publicly on the proposed reforms, notwithstanding the fact that they will place “novel and onerous responsibilities” on the judiciary. He notes that even the Lady Chief Justice has declined to express a view publicly, other than expressing her concern for the personal safety of judges if they are required to sit alone to determine guilt. Sir Stephen argues that judges are uniquely well placed to comment on the impact on justice of the proposals and should not be deterred by the suggestion that this would involve commenting on a matter of ‘government policy’.

The proposals amount to a fundamental change in the way criminal trials are conducted. He says: “The pressures, threats and dangers to which participating judges may be exposed be ignored. Contrast the position of the judge having to determine the verdict with that of the shared anonymity and responsibility of 12 anonymous jurors. Judges may become the subjects of statistics and predictions worthy of a betting shop — which judges to have and which to avoid. Why should these ramifications, and the views of serving judges who are to be subject to them, be concealed from the public?”

Sir Stephen also points out the dangers of determining the requirement for a trial by jury based on a prediction of likely sentence. He describes it as “bizarre” that a person’s good character would mean that they might be deprived of the right to be tried by a jury because they would be entitled to a shorter sentence.

The article concludes with a plea for a better debate. Sir Stephen says that the government must state publicly and clearly the reason for its proposals and show that they can cater for all of the ramifications of such fundamental changes. He concludes: “There has been no manifesto commitment and no consultation. Thus far, the quality of this lawyer-led government’s proposals, and their presentation, on judge-alone trials has been worse than poor — it has been pitiful and inexcusable.”

You can read Sir Stephen’s superb article in full here: I was a judge. We must not be silenced over the vandalism of juries

Bulk Hiring of Magistrates

Approximately ten days ago the Government unveiled its latest plans to try and make good the damage caused by years of underfunding the criminal justice system. They are advertising for thousands of new part-time magistrates, who will be recruited under a fast-track system and trained in under half the time of existing magistrates.

As Catherine Baksi in The Times described it, this is a “bulk hire” recruitment process. The article reports “Last week David Lammy, the justice secretary, announced a media campaign, which will cost up to £4 million, to “turbocharge” the recruitment of volunteers with the aim of adding 6,000 over the next three years.” The Times picks up on the Ministry of Justice’s clearly stated aim to “halve the time taken to recruit justices of the peace from more than a year to six months.”

How is this supposed to help reduce the backlog? It won’t. It is a rushed job which risks wasting public money as well as the precious time and resources of both the judiciary and HMCTS staff. Against this, the Government also plans, once again, to increase magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers, initially from 12 months to 18, and then potentially up to 24 months. Thus the purpose is to fill the benches with these newly appointed, lesser trained Magistrates, who will then preside over more serious, more complex cases in the lower court, imposing higher sentences – rather than these being dealt with by professional experienced judges in the Crown Court.

This is an ill-conceived plan which will make a bad situation worse.

Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts made clear that Magistrates’ sentencing powers should be kept at 12 months. At the time he was writing they had only recently been increased from six months to 12 months (in November 2024), and the strain on Magistrates Courts and prisons was already visible.

The Government’s own data demonstrates that the backlogs and ineffective trial rates in the Magistrates’ Courts are increasing. The MoJ data to December 2025 shows the following:

• The magistrates’ case backlog in December 2025 hit a series peak of 379,437, a rise of:
  • 4% over the final quarter of 2025, 13,122 extra between October and December;
  • 17% higher over the 12 months of 2025;
  • 35% higher in 18 months since this Government came to power in July 2024.
• By comparison the overall Crown Court case backlog across England and Wales has risen over four times more slowly:
  • it was up under 1% in the final quarter of 2025, 757 more extra cases, taking the backlog to 80,203;
  • But down in the South-East with signs of London backlogs also reducing;
  • Down in the North-West of England; and
  • Down across the whole of Wales.

Like the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Courts are suffering immense pressure from underfunding, collapsing buildings, and a chronic lack of staff, including full-time legal advisors. There is already a queue of  370,000 cases, and they are struggling to meet the demands upon them. In 2025, nearly 20,500 trials were cancelled on the first day of trial because of a combination of over-listing, a lack of magistrates, legal advisors, lawyers, interpreters and the ongoing failure of Prison Escort Services to deliver prisoners to Court on time or at all.  There is a retention crisis – magistrates are leaving. The backlogs have been rising at four times the rate of those in the Crown Court.

The proposed fast-tracking of training for newly recruited Magistrates means that the power to decide serious cases and impose life-changing sentences of up to two years will be given to inexperienced, non-legally qualified, part-time volunteers. This raises the risk of poor decision making on serious issues that will have a huge impact not only on the liberty of the accused, but also on the well-being of complainant victims.

The Government’s plans are a recipe for rough justice for all involved in criminal trials. There can be no short cut to improving the state of our criminal justice system.  The Government’s own impact assessment for the Courts and Tribunal Bill assumes that work which currently occupies 24,000 sitting days in the Crown Court (heard by professional judges) can be transferred to the Magistrates’ Court and processed within 8,500 days. There is no evidence to support this assumption, which seems more like maths grounded in fantasy rather than data. The government’s plans are simply ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ – shifting the problem from one court to another that is already worse off.

They are not solving it – rather, they are hammering yet more nails into the coffin.

We urge you to read in full the Times’ lead article by Catherine Baksi here. Fears over bid to ‘bulk hire’ magistrates.

Chair of House of Commons Justice Select Committee “Magistrates’ Courts will not be able to cope”

If the Government stops its ears to what we have been warning for months and months, then perhaps it will listen to the measured words of wisdom from within its own ranks.  The Chair of the Justice Select Committee and Labour MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, Andy Slaughter MP addressing the Secretary of State for Justice and his Courts Minister in the House of Commons on 10 March when those ministers led the second reading of the Courts and Tribunal Bill, said:

“I am concerned that Magistrates’ Courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the Magistrates’ Court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the Magistrates’ Court, which has its own backlog.”

Bringing down Crown Court backlogs – sustainable solutions with data to show for it

On the 25th of March, I gave evidence on behalf of the CBA, alongside Kirsty Brimelow KC for the Bar Council, Claire Davies KC (Leader of the South Eastern Circuit), Samantha Hillas KC (Leader of the Northern Circuit) and Caroline Goodwin KC (Leader of the North Eastern Circuit) to the House of Commons Committee which is scrutinising the Courts and Tribunal Bill. Last week we also submitted a further written submission together with the Circuit Leaders and the Bar Council.

During these sessions, Claire Davies KC took Sarah Sackman, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, to task for the Government’s failure to publish the data which would show the effect of the measures taken so far. Within less than 48 hours of their exchange the Government released the courts data up to December 2025. This reveals that the tide is starting to turn, and in many regions the backlog is starting to fall. This means that initiatives launched by our judiciary, and already underway are working – even before the reduction that will come as a result of the cap on sitting days having been lifted this month.

In the North-West of England, Liverpool has been operating a system of what the MoJ has branded “blitz courts” for several months. Preston has a protocol underway to accelerate domestic abuse cases and reduce key parts of that backlog:

• Preston’s Crown Court backlog at the end of December 2025 was 2,371
  • Down 4% (4.3%) in one quarter (2,474 September 2025)
  • Down 8% (7.7%) in nine months from its series peak (2,570 March 2025)
  • Preston has been disposing of more sexual offence cases, including rape, than receipts for the past six months helping both measures to decline over the period.

• Liverpool’s Crown Court backlog at the end of December 2025 was 1,745
  • Down 2% (1.8%) in one quarter (1,773 September 2025)
  • Down 4% (3.9%) in six months from its series peak (1,815 in June 2025)

Across the whole of the North-West of England the Crown Court backlog fell 1% (0.9%) in the final three months of 2025 from 10,048 in September to 9,955 in December 2025.

And let us always bear in mind Wales. There, the backlog fell 1.5% in the final quarter of 2025 from 2,935 in September 2025 to 2,892 in December 2025.

The South-East of England is the region with the second largest level of outstanding cases. But it has nonetheless also managed to achieve a decline in its backlog of 1.3% from 16,307 in September to 16,102 in December 2025. This is not just a blip but part of a steeper, longer decline in many leading regional South-East Crown Courts that has been underway for between nine and 18 months ranging from Ipswich, to Cambridge, Luton and Chelmsford to Maidstone and Canterbury.

In Snaresbrook, the largest Crown Court in the country, there are signs that their version of “blitz courts” are having a positive impact. In November last year Snaresbrook obtained six months’, ring-fenced funding to maintain two court rooms devoted to fast-tracking bailed cases, the criteria being a single defendant with no serious mental health issues and three-to-four-day trial estimates.  Those courts are churning through cases without any compromise to fairness. Trials that were booked in for two years away are now being brought forward by 18 months or more.

Furthermore, the data available shows that overall court receipts into Snaresbrook in the final quarter of 2025 (October to December) was 1,009, representing a 23.5% fall from the quarterly peak of 1,319 in the first quarter of 2025 (January to March). For several weeks in March 2025, at the peak of the constraint on sitting days, Snaresbrook was forced to close up to 9 of its 20 available court rooms. Since the start of 2026 Snaresbrook is back to using as many of its 20 court rooms possible, limited only by judicial availability just as it was able from October 2022 to June 2024. When Snaresbrook was last able to fully sit its backlog fell 13% in just 12 months in 2023.

MPs and members of the House of Lords must be armed with proper data to help scrutinise the Courts and Tribunal Bill as it progresses through Parliament, and to that end, we look forward to the MoJ providing us, and them, with detailed breakdowns of the successes of those two courts in Snaresbrook for the final quarter of 2025, and for the quarter just ended to March 2026.

These targeted initiatives are working. We urge Government to give us time to carry on with this work. We urge the Government to make good on its manifesto commitment to create specialist sexual and domestic abuse courts – because despite protestations to the contrary, we can see from Preston Crown Court’s success, these will work.

Give us time. Give us the resources that we have been denied for many years now. Give us, and give our resident judges those things, and we can reduce backlogs and delays – without restricting the right to jury trial, and destroying our criminal justice system.

CLAAB

Last week on the 22nd of April, we attended a long overdue and disappointing meeting of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board [CLAAB]. Overdue because our last meeting was in January.  Disappointing because we expected to be given some detail of how it is proposed the £34 million (£28 million + VAT) that the Government have said they are committing to defence fees will be distributed. This was announced on 2nd December 2025, when the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy said: “To recognise the vital role of the legal sector in rescuing the courts from this crisis, legal professionals will be boosted by a significant additional investment in criminal legal aid fees for advocates of up to £34m a year.”

Sadly, nearly 5 months on, there is little that we can report.

We made submissions on fees in March 2025. We made further submissions in December 2025. We made further submissions specifically on the distribution of the £34 million in January 2026. HH Deborah Taylor, the Chair of CLAAB stepped down in January. 4 months have passed, and she is yet to be replaced.  We are told the appointment of her successor is imminent. 4 months have passed, and we are told by the MoJ that the results of the consultation in respect of the distribution of the promised £34 million will be provided “as soon as possible”.

I can assure you that it has been made very clear by us, and by the Bar Council, that this is unsatisfactory. We raise it and will continue to raise it at our regular meetings with the MoJ. We will keep the pressure up, and we will keep you informed.

The CBA Spring Conference

The conference took place on the 18th of April. It was a hugely successful, interesting, informative and entertaining day – our thanks go to Paul Jarvis KC, William Davis KC who, alongside the rest of the CBA Education and Training Committee and our tireless administrator, Aaron Dolan, organised the day. We are particularly grateful to all our speakers who gave us their time and valuable insights on a Saturday: Lady Justice May, who delivered the key note address; Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson; Paul  Jarvis KC; Mary Cowe from The Service Prosecuting Authority; Valerie Charbit and Nicola Shannon KC; Dr Samantha Fairclough, Danny Robinson KC; and Lyndon Harris.

In Memoriam

John Jones QC

This year marked the 10th anniversary of the passing of John Jones QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, who came together to remember John within a gathering of friends and family in chambers.

Called to the Bar in 1993, John was undoubtedly a remarkable man and a barrister who gave a huge amount to his profession, and who remains sorely missed.

In an obituary for Counsel Magazine in May 2016, his friend and colleague Geoffrey Robertson QC, Doughty Street Chambers described John as “a fine advocate, a brilliant scholar, a loving family man and a leading architect of the nascent system of international criminal trials. His special contribution to human rights was marked in the Hague courtroom where he had been appearing, shortly after it heard the news of his death. The judges and lawyers all stood in his honour, with the words ‘Today, we are all wearing John Jones’ robe.’”

The full tribute can be found here, and his obituary in The Times here.

Our thoughts go out to John’s family, his friends, his colleagues, and all who met to remember him last week.

For those who may be struggling, be you a barrister, clerk or other chambers member of staff, there are resources available – do reach out. The Bar Council provide well-being support which can be accessed here: https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/support-for-barristers/wellbeing-personal-career-support/wellbeing-at-the-bar.html

Mark George KC Memorial Lecture 2026

Manchester University last week hosted the second Mark George KC Memorial Lecture, supported by Garden Court North chambers. The event was a tribute to the indefatigable work which Mark did throughout his career to champion many causes of legal and social justice. The key speakers were Kate Flannery of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and Matt Foot of APPEAL. They were introduced by Professor Claire McGourlay and Suzanne Gower, of Manchester University Faculty of Law, and Pete Weatherby KC from GCN.

The event was a reminder of the importance of pro-bono and campaigning work. Mark showed us how volunteer action can make a real difference, from his work with Amicus on death penalty cases abroad to his campaigning for a public inquiry into the police conduct and prosecutions arising from Orgreave.

Matt Foot spoke about the work involved in pursuing cases of alleged miscarriage of justice, exemplified by the long fight which Andrew Malkinson had to clear his name. He raised concerns about the effectiveness of the CCRC, whose work has now come under scrutiny in the Law Commission’s review. He also called for the retention of the right to elect trial by jury.

**Reminder – Report PECS delays**

The CBA and the Bar Council are continuing to collect examples of delays in getting people in custody into court.

If you experience a delay, please use the reporting form below and share it with your colleagues:

https://bit.ly/PECS-delay-form-Bar-Council

You can complete the form each time you experience a delay.

You can provide as much detail as needed and can complete the form anonymously if you prefer.

Please do it. We need this data both to advance our arguments on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to improve things.

**Reminder – Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training**

Please remember that any advocate prosecuting or defending a sexual case in the Crown or Magistrates’ Courts should have undertaken the vulnerable witness advocacy training before doing so.

The training is run by all the Inns, is highly worthwhile, and in addition to assisting the process of these trials, and making them better for complainants, witnesses, and defendants, it also helps to protects you from complaints.

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.

MP Visits to Crown Courts

On behalf of the South Eastern Circuit and the CBA, Simon Spence KC of Red Lion Chambers, and Chris Martin of 2 Bedford Row hosted a highly successful day at Chelmsford Crown Court on the 24th of April showing Marie Goldman MP around the court, meeting with staff and various personnel from witness services, barristers, and CPS, discussing how all those involved in the criminal justice system are working together to improve efficiencies and avoid delay. Marie was engaged and interested, and certainly left well informed and armed with information as to what the real problems are.

A series of further dates for MPs to visit their local Crown Courts and meet with the criminal bar have been arranged over the coming weeks. Future dates and Courts are as follows.

• 17th April, 12:45-14:00 – Swansea Crown Court – Wales and Chester Circuit, Christopher Rees KC;
• 1st May, 12:45-13:45 – Wolverhampton Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC;
• 20th May, 12:45-14:00 – Manchester Crown Court – Northern Circuit – Samantha Hillas KC
• 12th June, 12:45-14:00 – Nottingham Crown Court – Midland Circuit, Harpreet Sandhu KC;
• 15th May –  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 CBA “Criminal Justice Matters” Podcast – Martin Shaw

In this episode of the Criminal Justice Matters podcast, Simon Spence KC and Kate Bex KC speak to the award-winning actor and long-term supporter of the Criminal Bar, Martin Shaw.

From appearing in The Professionals in the 1980s, Judge John Deed in the 2000s and Inspector George Gently in the 2010s, Martin has often starred in leading roles relating to the criminal justice system. While he says this was more by accident than design, he does have a long-standing belief in fairness and the importance of justice. He says his career has left him with a deep respect for those working at the Criminal Bar and a desire to depict the system accurately.

As a direct consequence of his work, Martin is a long-time supporter and advocate for the Kalisher Trust, which helps young people from diverse backgrounds to make a career at the Criminal Bar.

You can hear the full episode here.

Criminal Justice Matters is produced and edited by Adam Batstone Media & Communications

And Finally…

No Message next week, as it is the first of the May Bank holidays. We hope the sun shines, and you have time to enjoy a relaxing and work free weekend with family, friends, feline or canine companions – or serene solitude. Whatever takes your fancy.

Yours,