News Bulletin 26th January, 2026
96 New King’s Counsel
The CBA warmly congratulates and welcomes all those who were successful in this year’s competition, there were 23 criminal barristers and 2 with a mixed criminal and civil practice.
Our 23 criminal barristers whose excellence in advocacy was recognised through the award. are listed below:
| Matthew Bean | Philip David Barnes |
| Benjamin Close | Alexander dos Santos |
| Sonal Dashani | John Fitzgerald |
| William Davis | Steven Gray |
| Felicia Davy | Helen Law |
| Serena Gates | Daniel James Pawson-Pounds |
| Simon Gurney | Matthew Roberts |
| Hanna Llewellyn-waters | Vanessa Thomson |
| Eleanor Mawrey | Gareth James Weetman |
| Louise Oakley | Thomas Williams |
| Luke Ponte | Barry McElduff |
| Karen Robinson |
To those who were unsuccessful we send our commiserations – and this plea: don’t give up. Not all will admit it, but the reality is that many don’t get it the first, second, or even third time, so do persist.
Your day will come.
MP and Peers drop-in session in Parliament
Last Tuesday, 20th January 2026, in a joint CBA and Bar Council organised event, Riel Karmy-Jones KC, Andrew Thomas KC, Kirsty Brimelow KC, and Circuit Leaders and Circuit representatives met with MPs and Peers to explain why we collectively stand together to oppose the government’s proposals to restrict jury trials. Kirsty and Riel both addressed the MPs, after which there was a Q&A discussion to which all who attended contributed.
It was an extremely successful and informative evening. We are grateful to all the MPs and Peers who took time to attend and to contribute to the discussion. We particularly want to thank those from the Bar Council who assisted in the arrangements and smooth running of the evening: Piran Dhillon-Starkin, Archie Jacob, Rhiannon Du Cann, Nikita Feifel, Sarah Kavanagh and Sally Burnell.
Institute for Government Report
In the News Bulletin last week, we referenced the evidence given by Cassia Rowland, Senior Researcher from the Institute of Government Research to the Justice Select Committee on 14th January 2026 that curtailing the right to trial by jury would have minimal effect on the overall length of proceedings of cases in the Crown Court. In giving her evidence, Cassia said that the effect would be at most approximately 1 to 2%.
The Institute for Government’s full report was published on 21st January and has confirmed that the government’s proposals would have a less than 2% effect on the speed of the process. The full report can be found here.
Speaking to Haroon Siddique and Rajeev Syal of the Guardian on 22nd January 2026, Cassia is quoted as saying:
“The government’s proposed reforms to jury trials will not fix the problems in the crown court. The time savings from judge-only trials will be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of crown court time. Hearing more trials in magistrates’ courts is a stronger proposal and would potentially save more time, but the government has yet to set out specific details of how it would do that and the estimates are highly uncertain. For a bigger and faster impact on the crown court backlog, the government should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the courts to operate more efficiently.”
The full Guardian article can be found here.
Remuneration
Improving publicly funded remuneration so that it fairly reflects the work that criminal barristers do is a constant part of our function at the CBA. We are in regular communication with the MoJ, the CPS, and the Bar Council about this ongoing issue.
There are two strands of representations – one is the CLAAB and AGFS fees, and the other is CPS prosecution. Together with the Bar Council, we have made numerous representations in respect of both, assisted greatly by Richard Christie KC and the CBA Remuneration Committee which has prepared ladders of comparisons between defence and prosecution fees, charts showing the contrasting and derisory fees received for certain types of hearings, together with what those equate to in the “real money” of an hourly rate, and how payment for our work compares to that of other specialist areas of practice.
- Defence Fees [AGFS / CLAAB]
On 2nd December 2025 the Government announced what they called “a significant investment in legal aid fees for advocates of up to £34 million a year”. It has now become clear that that £34 million is inclusive of VAT, in fact making the promised investment £28,220,000. While we recognise this is a start, we have made it clear that we do not consider this to be sufficient.
On the 14th of January, we met with MOJ officials and others to discuss proposals for the allocation of this investment package. The options and submissions made cover both general uplifts to AGFS fees and targeted interventions. We have stressed that increases need to reach criminal barristers as soon as possible, and should apply to currently instructed cases, rather than being pushed off into the long grass, only to come into effect in a year or more’s time. We will be continuing our work on this over the next few months.
- Prosecution fees
In June 2025, the CPS received an increase to their budget of £96million. Subsequently, they announced that this increase did not include provision for advocacy fees. We have therefore continued to make detailed submissions in respect of prosecution fees, including calling for payment for sentencing notes, increased fees for sentencing hearings, increased rates for Rape and Serious Sexual Offence [RASSO] cases, for disclosure, and more. We have met with the DPP and will continue to push forward with this work.
Upcoming Justice Needs Juries Events
- Friday 30th January – Constituency Court Day.
In conjunction with the Circuit Leaders, a number of court centres have been selected for a day of observation, education and discussion (this is not intended as a day of ‘action’). The Bar Council has identified and invited MPs closest to each court.
Please contact your Circuit Leader for more details.
If you’d like to invite your local MP then please contact [email protected] and let them know your address. They will assist by making sure that the MP has been contacted and invited them to the nearest court offering the day. If this court centre is too far, they will suggest another date for arranging a visit to a court closer to their constituency. If you wish to personally extend an invitation to your MP to visit one of these courts, we attach a template letter for you to use if you wish here.
The relevant court centres are:
- Midland Circuit: Birmingham, Nottingham
- North Eastern Circuit: Sheffield, Leeds
- Northern Circuit: Liverpool, Chester
- South Eastern Circuit: Maidstone, Inner London, Isleworth
- Western Circuit: Bristol and Winchester
- Wales and Chester: Cardiff and Swansea
- Tuesday 3rd February – Parliamentary lobby day, 7.00pm–9.00pm.
This is an evening event where MP’s and Peers will have an opportunity to meet the Bar, to discuss issues and concerns around the Government’s proposals to restrict the right to jury trial. The later time is so as to allow for members on circuit to travel to London after court.
Please note – this is not a demonstration, however, it is hoped that at least some will bring their robes and be willing to be part of a photograph which will be circulated to the press. There are limited spaces available, which must be split amongst the circuits, and for security reasons, access to the event is by invitation only. If you are interested in attending, please contact Nikita Feifel, Public Affairs Manager at the Bar Council who is making arrangements with Parliament for entry, and keeping a record of applications and invitations – here.
REMINDER – Write to Your MP
Writing to your MP remains one of the most effective ways for those who practise within, and best understand, the criminal justice system to make their voices heard.
Thank you to everyone who emailed their MP’s and forwarded emails after last week’s message. We will provide an update as to numbers next week. If you may have forgotten to copy in the CBA and Bar Council email addresses please forward your correspondence to [email protected], and [email protected], or email to confirm that you have written. This allows us to quantify numbers for use in our future representations.
For any new letter, the following resources are available:
- You can find out who your MP is, and how to contact them by email via Find your MP – MPs and Lords – UK Parliament
- The Template letter which you can adapt to suit your personal circumstances and experiences can be found here.
- The Briefing Note which you may wish to send with your letter can be found here.
PLEASE do CC in both
so that we can continue to collectively monitor numbers.
Sentencing Act 2026
The Sentencing Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 22nd January 2026. The Act gives effect to many of the recommendations in the report of the Independent Sentencing Review, chaired by David Gauke. This includes extending the range and scope of community sentences and revising the systems for early release from prison. It also includes some offence-specific reforms, including amendments to Sch 21 to provide for whole life orders in cases involving the murder of police, prison or probation officers and a requirement for the sentencing judge to state in open court whether they have found that an offence involved domestic abuse.
Most of the provisions will come into effect on future dates and will be specified in commencement regulations, allowing arrangements to be put in place. However, some provisions will come into force on 22nd March 2026. The most important of these concerns Suspended Sentence Orders. Section 1 provides for a presumption that sentences of imprisonment or detention of 12 months or less will be suspended. Subject to certain exemptions, this states that the Court must suspend the sentence unless exceptional circumstances are found. Section 2 increases the maximum term for which a sentence can be suspended to 3 years. This will apply to cases where the conviction is after the commencement date of 22 March 2026.
The full text of the Act can be found here.
The MoJ’s announcement of the Act can be found here.
Bar Council’s first Commissioner for Conduct Dame Maria Miller DBE
We welcome the first ever appointed Commissioner for Conduct, Dame Maria Miller DBE.
Last year, the independent review into bullying, harassment and sexual harassment – commissioned by the Bar Council, and conducted by Baroness Harriet Harman KC – was published. It set out 36 ‘decisive and radical’ recommendations for reform to tackle the ‘unsustainable situation’ at the Bar. A key recommendation was for a Commissioner of Conduct to oversee reform and ensure that the recommendations made in the Harman Review were implemented.
Dame Maria Miller DBE is the former Conservative MP for Basingstoke, and was the first Chair of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee. She was awarded a damehood in 2022 for her work on equality matters and is also Chair of SafeLives, the UK charity dedicated to ending domestic abuse.
Riel is meeting with Dame Maria next week, and we look forward to working with her to eradicate bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in and around the Bar.
Gang Related Violence – CPS Consultation
The CBA has submitted its response to the Crown Prosecution Service consultation on gang-related offences guidance and the use of musical expression in evidence. Developed by a CBA Committee drawing on extensive experience in serious criminal litigation, appellate authority and research, the response supports clear, evidence-based and non-discriminatory prosecutorial guidance, while identifying areas where further safeguards and clarification are needed – particularly around gang narratives, expert evidence and artistic expression.
With thanks to Keir Monteith KC, Paul Jackson, Shina Animashaun, Daniel White, Zach Brettel, Ife Thompson, Julian Jones, and Chloe Ashley for their valuable contributions.
And Finally….
To lift the mood, here is a contribution written and read by Bruce Houlder KC – was he inspired by Burns night we wonder?
We highly recommend that you listen to Bruce’s own rendition as you read by following this link here.
The Great Judicial Calamity Now Threatening the Courts of This Realm-
A skeleton argument revealing “A Great Truth”
With profuse apologies to William McGonagall
Oh people of Britain, who once used to win,
I now write a poem, though poorly I begin,
Concerning the Justice Secretary’s great plan,
Which puzzles all thinkers, including wise man.
It is about juries, those citizens true,
Who listen to facts and then think them all through,
But Ministers say, with a confident shout,
“We’ve pondered this deeply,” though no proof backs it out.
In days long departed, when folly held sway,
Such notions were floated, to be sent on their way,
For Parliament rose with a thunderous cry,
“This scheme is unfair!” and bad it good bye.
They called it unjust and remarkably rash,
And tossed it quite firmly straight into the trash,
Yet now Labour’s Government, bold as can be,
Has dusted it off with alarming glee.
Why double down hard on a plan so unsure,
With no evidence showing it’s really a cure?
It shortens no delays, it saves no great time,
It doesn’t improve justice—nor rhythm nor rhyme.
How curious, too, and extremely obtuse,
That faith in the system is meant to increase,
By cutting the public completely away,
From verdicts that send folk to prison to stay.
For who feels more comforted, calm, and impressed,
When judged by one mind instead of the rest?
Is justice more trusted when hidden from view,
With fewer opinions and fewer folk too?
And why were the judges not asked what they think,
Before Ministers pushed this odd policy brink?
Do they imagine judges puffed up like balloons,
Declaring, “Our judgment outweighs all the rooms!”
Do they think judges yearn, with egos unchained,
To rule on all facts, with bias well tamed?
When no man nor woman with brains in their head
Is free from opinions that quietly tread.
But tell me, oh tell me, with seriousness grave,
How does this plan help the courts that we have?
The ceilings that drip with a judicial plop,
The hearings postponed ‘cause all building must stop.
The courts that are closed for hygiene alone,
Where mould claims dominion and fungus is grown,
The staff that are missing, the files in a heap—
Does ditching the jury help any of these?
The whole place supported by barristers brave,
Who toil for rewards that are scarcely a wage,
Working for peanuts, for crumbs, and for air,
Held together by goodwill and legal despair.
And how, pray explain with a straight-looking face,
Will you conjure up judges for this shiny new place?
Judge-alone trials, so polished and keen—
But the posts they come from have already been cleaned.
The pipeline is empty, the cupboard is bare,
The benches are thinning, the wigs in despair,
So from whence will they come, these judges so spry,
When the very old routes they rely on run dry?
And why, might I ask with a puzzled-faced stare,
Was a judge commissioned to thoughtfully care,
To study these problems and offer a way,
Then ignored when his answers came into the day?
Why ask for expertise, polished and neat,
Then trip over reason and fall in the street?
Why spend public money on wisdom well-bred,
Then do what you fancied inside your own head?
The answer is plain, if plainly one stares,
Though Ministers seldom indulge in such cares:
That one man’s fine judgment, however renowned,
Is still only one thought, not wisdom well-found.
For judgment by one, though robed and though wise,
Is merely fine tat in impressive disguise—
A trinket of thinking, well wrapped and well paid,
But lacking the strength that the many have made.
So consultation is held, with a flourish and bow,
Not to alter the course, but to decorate it now;
Advice is collected, then placed on display,
Like flowers arranged and then quietly left to decay.
The fee can be settled, the conscience kept clean,
The report nicely footnoted, dated, and seen,
Then filed away gently, ignored with great care,
For listening fully would slow the affair.
And all of this, mind you, is perfectly fair,
Entirely reasonable, balanced, and square;
For what could be sounder, more modern, or right,
Than knowing you’re right before hearing the fight?
A system admired across oceans and lands,
Now shrunk by a minister’s confident hands?
Oh Secretary of Justice, so noble and stern,
Why turn from the lessons you’re able to learn?
The solutions stare at you straight in the face,
Yet you sprint past them briskly at remarkable pace.
So answer this question, I beg and I plead,
Before justice trips over its ministerial speed:
Who would you trust most, in matters so grave—
A jury of citizens, thoughtful and brave?
Or one lonely judge, with opinions intact,
Who must wrestle alone with both law and with fact?
For where lies the balance, pray tell us, pray do,
Between many-eyed justice and judgment by few?
Think well, oh think well, before pushing this through,
For folly once doubled is harder to undo—
And justice, once dented by policy rash,
Is not easily mended…
like poems such as this one, alas.
Bruce Houlder KC 25.1.26
Thank you Bruce – from all of us.
Yours,
Riel
Riel Karmy-Jones KC
Chair
The Criminal Bar Association