The CBA Briefing: 28th September 2026

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

Implementation of the National Listing Framework

A reminder to all practitioners that the National Listing Framework takes effect this week, on 1st October 2026.

The new framework makes a significant difference to the conduct of PTPH hearings, and all practitioners need to be familiar with the requirements. An assessment will have to be made of each case to identify its “Priority Tier”. The court will also have to determine whether a case should have a “Fixed Date Listing” or a “Flexible Date Listing”.

Details of the scheme are here: National Listing Framework: a new approach to criminal listing. A copy of the new Practice Direction is here: Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts.

Webinar on Matched Funding for Criminal Pupillage

Thank you to all members who joined us on Wednesday last week for the webinar launching the Matched Funding for Criminal Pupillage scheme.

The Ministry of Justice has committed to invest up to 1.5 million pounds in supporting chambers to provide pupillage awards for future criminal barristers. The scheme is being administered by the Council of the Inns of Court within its existing matched funding scheme. The objectives are to boost the number of practitioners undertaking criminal work and to widen access to the Bar.

The scheme has now gone live, and details are here: coic.org.uk/pupillage-matched-funding. On behalf of COIC, Hayley Dawes is available to deal with any queries chambers may have about the scheme and the application process. Contact details are on the website.

Our thanks to Mrs Justice Lieven, Hayley Dawes and Andy Russell of COIC, Sam Mercer of the Bar Council and Ned Sharpe of the Ministry of Justice for joining us for the webinar presentation.

A full recording of the webinar is now available to watch. If you could not join on the day, or if there is someone in chambers who deals with pupillage and should see it, this is the whole session.

Criminal courts statistics: the Crown Court backlog is stabilising

The latest set of Criminal Courts Statistics was published on Thursday 24th September 2026, giving the figures for the second quarter of this year, April to June 2026: Criminal court statistics quarterly, April to June 2026.

The backlog in the Crown Court has risen only marginally, up by 392 cases to 80,829. Overall, the increase in the Crown Court backlog was 0.45 per cent in the six months to June.

The picture is that the Crown Court backlog is stabilising. Between 2022 and 2025 the backlog rose by 18,000 cases, around nine per cent year on year. The figures for the latest quarters show that rise has come under control.

Meanwhile the backlog in the magistrates’ courts is continuing to grow at a significant rate. In the latest quarter it increased by 8,250 cases to an all-time high of 380,230, an increase of 9.5 per cent for the year and 52 per cent since 2022. The areas with the steepest increases are the North West and London.

Regional Crown Court performance

The latest figures show that the Crown Court backlog has fallen in four out of seven regions, mirroring the performance of the past year.

There were quarterly falls in the North West, the North East, the South East and Wales. In all of those regions the backlog has seen significant falls in the year to June: down 3.7 per cent in the North West, down one per cent in the North East, down 5.4 per cent in the South East and down 3.7 per cent in Wales.

Much of the increase is within London courts, where the backlog rose by 2.15 per cent, or 435 cases, in the quarter. It is hoped that the opening of the new Law Courts on Fleet Street in early 2027 will help relieve the pressure on the courts in the capital.

There was also a significant rise in the South West, up by 4.3 per cent, or 272 cases. Significantly, the South West was the only region where the number of new cases received increased. The backlog in the Midlands saw a smaller increase of 74 cases, up by 0.5 per cent.

Nationally, new case receipts were at the lowest level since 2023, having fallen for the past three quarters in a row. While this has reduced some of the pressure on the Crown Court, we are still dealing with the combined effects of previous increases in the caseload and the cuts to sitting days in 2024 and 2025. London Crown Courts bore a disproportionate share of the 2024 and 2025 court budget cuts and caps, making their trial waiting lists expand compared with many other courts around the country. The cap on sitting days was only removed altogether on 1st April 2026 and we are yet to see the full benefit.

Individual Crown Courts

A number of individual Crown Courts reported falls in excess of five per cent in the backlog this quarter.

The increase in London was fairly evenly spread between the court centres. Just two London courts had increases in excess of five per cent. The Old Bailey reported a rise of 74 cases, 10.85 per cent, despite having increased the number of cases completed. This is accounted for by a sharp increase in new cases received by the Old Bailey, which was up by 31 per cent in the quarter. There was a similar result at Isleworth, where the backlog rose by 154 cases, 5.8 per cent, despite an increase in the number of case completions. There were falls at Croydon, Inner London, Kingston and Southwark.

Impact on delays

The real world consequence of the backlog is the impact on waiting times for cases to be heard. All criminal barristers will be familiar with cases being listed for trial a year or more in advance. This is confirmed by the statistics.

For cases where a not guilty plea is entered, the median time from sending to completion has increased this quarter from 408 days to 418 days, a two per cent increase. For rape cases the figure is even higher, at 448 days. This supports the need for the new National Listing Framework and the dedicated rape courts, to ensure that priority is given to cases involving the most vulnerable victims and witnesses.

The significance of the data for the Courts and Tribunals Bill

Although the rises of the past five years have been brought under control, no one can be complacent about these figures. The delays in cases being sent for trial are still unacceptable. Practical steps are required to ensure that priority is given to the right cases. The removal of the cap on sitting days will hopefully allow more trials to be completed.

However, the picture is now very different from the “courts crisis” which was used to justify the proposed restriction of trial by jury. In March, during the Second Reading debate on the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the then Lord Chancellor David Lammy MP told MPs: “If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade.” He told MPs that they would see the need to change the structure of the criminal courts “when presented with the evidence, that the backlog would be heading to 200,000 by 2035”. In fact the Government has never published the calculations they relied upon to make that shocking prediction. It is understandable that MPs were horrified.

Likewise, the impact assessment published with the Bill contained a graph showing the inexorable rise in the Crown Court backlog. The graph showed a predicted rise to 100,000 cases by next year, 2027, and 200,000 cases by 2035.

The delayed progress of the Bill has allowed us all to see the evidence of what has actually happened. We have now seen successive quarters of criminal courts statistics which show that the rise in the backlog has stabilised. Why were the predictions apparently so wrong? The reality all along was that “do nothing” was not a plausible scenario. Action was already being taken at courts up and down the country to address the backlog, by triaging cases, by using blitz courts and through increased sitting days.

In her statement on the figures, the Justice Minister Sarah Sackman KC MP said that the Government are acting on all fronts. She pointed to the significant increase in investment announced in the past twelve months. The Minister said that the figures show the scale of the challenge.

One thing is clear. Juries have not caused the backlog. It is the practical measures already taken which have turned the tide, without the need to change our system of trial by jury.

R v Nanthakumar and others: recording proceedings

In a trial at Southwark Crown Court, HHJ Nicholas Rimmer has given a significant ruling on permission for counsel to use a personal recording device to record the proceedings for the purpose of trial work and preparation.

The decision may be seen as setting an important precedent, both on the principle of allowing recordings to be made for the purposes of transcription and on the conditions the court would need to impose to ensure the security of the recording.

The ruling was handed down on 26th August 2026. It allowed all counsel in the trial to obtain an auto-generated transcript of the proceedings, relieving them of the need to keep a full note of the evidence. The rationale was that it allows counsel to concentrate on the evidence as it is given rather than on the mechanical task of taking a note. Detailed directions were given to ensure that any recordings were kept secure and used solely by counsel.

In his ruling, HHJ Rimmer considered section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Although the general rule is that it is a contempt of court to use a tape recorder or other recording equipment in court, the section allows a judge to grant permission for recording to take place, subject to conditions. He also considered rule 6.9 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, which sets out the procedure for an application for permission to record proceedings and again provides for the making of conditions.

In Nanthakumar the application was made jointly by all six counsel in the case, both prosecution and defence, and highlighted the technical nature of the evidence. HHJ Rimmer was satisfied that the use of transcription technology would improve the accuracy of counsel’s note-taking, and that this was likely to improve productivity and the accuracy of submissions made about the evidence in trial proceedings.

As to security, HHJ Rimmer noted that counsel were each registered as a data processor for the purposes of GDPR. He gave detailed directions on the handling of the recordings, set out in a schedule to his ruling. The recording device, or devices, were to be used by counsel only. Recordings were to be kept securely on the device on which they were made, and were to be password protected. For the purposes of preparing a transcript there was permission to upload them in encrypted form to a specified secure transcription website. The transcripts were for counsel’s use only and were not to be regarded as an official transcript of the proceedings.

HHJ Rimmer observed that technology has changed considerably since the 1981 Act was passed. He noted that daily transcripts were routinely provided to the parties in other countries. Although there is the facility to direct the provision of LiveNote transcripts, in most cases the cost is prohibitive. He said:

A copy of HHJ Rimmer’s ruling has been published by CrimeLine. We are grateful to Michael Stradling of 3TG for bringing this decision to our attention.

HHJ Rimmer’s comment on the provision of daily automated transcripts mirrors one of the recommendations by Lord Leveson in Part 2 of his Independent Review of Criminal Courts. Recommendation 135 was that HMCTS should pilot the use of artificial intelligence transcription and, subject to audit of its accuracy, that it should be adopted by all courts.

This week in criminal law