The CBA Briefing: the Courts and Tribunals Bill heads to the Lords

The Advocates’ Gateway – Feedback Survey

The Advocates’ Gateway (‘TAG’) Toolkits are widely used in the criminal courts to support effective communication with vulnerable witnesses, defendants and other court users.

TAG are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the Toolkits to ensure that they remain practical, accessible and, above all, responsive to the needs of advocates.

As part of this work, TAG are seeking feedback from practising barristers on how they use the Toolkits, which they find most valuable, and where improvements or additional guidance might be helpful. The survey is entirely anonymous, takes less than 10 minutes to complete, and will remain open until 30th November 2026.

Professor Jonathan Doak, the TAG Chair, has told the CBA that the views of criminal practitioners will be particularly valuable in helping us ensure that the revised Toolkits are grounded in the realities of courtroom practice.

The survey can be found here: The Advocate’s Gateway Toolkits: A Survey for Practising Barristers

The Toolkits are an essential part of our work, and the widest possible response to the survey will help ensure that they continue to provide the focused support for advocates.

CBA Young Bar Day

Congratulations to Emma Fielding and the Young CBA Committee for arranging the hugely successful CBA Young Bar Day at Inner Temple this weekend, and many thanks to all of the young practitioners who gave up most of their Saturday to attend.

The sold-out event heard keynote speeches from two former Chairs of the CBA, Dame Anne Rafferty DBE and Caroline Goodwin KC, the current Leader of the North Eastern Circuit. Scott Matthewson, who leads on established practitioner training at Inner Temple, and Dr Nikki Lack, a Consultant at UCL Hospitals, gave a hugely informative presentation on how to prepare and present expert witness evidence, including cross examination.

Anoushka Twining, HHJ Hannah Kinch and HHJ Georgina Sharkey were interviewed by Emma Fielding about career development of the Bar. There were also workshops on advocacy, RASSO work, appellate advocacy and the cross over between crime and public work with contributors including John Ryder KC, Michael Mansfield KC, HHJ Sharkey, Sally Hobson, Henry James and Nneka Akudolu KC. The closing address was by Dame Maria Miller DBE, the Bar Council’s Commissioner for Conduct.

This was the Young Bar Day’s second year. Its success belongs to the enthusiasm of the junior barristers attending the event, joining in with questions and participating in the workshops. It allows juniors who are practicing in crime from all around England and Wales to meet together, network and make new friends.

Many thanks to all of the speakers and facilitators, and to the Inner Temple staff for hosting.

New Young CBA Committee members sought

The Young CBA committee represents barristers in the early years of practice. The committee is looking for new members, up to 7 years post pupillage, to serve for the next year. If you are interested, please contact Aaron Dolan: [email protected]

Courts and Tribunals Bill – Update

On Tuesday evening, 13th October 2026, the Courts and Tribunals Bill passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. The Bill now goes to the House of Lords. The Government have set a tight timetable, with the Second Reading in the Lords already scheduled for Tuesday next week, 27th October 2026.

The Bill passed its Third Reading by 301 to 193. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to vote to support the Bill. MPs voting against included 99 Conservatives, 68 Liberal Democrats, 4 Plaid Cymru, 5 Reform, 7 independents, 2 Labour rebels and 6 Northern Irish MPs. With no electoral mandate for any of these changes, the Government may face difficulties carrying the controversial parts of the proposed reforms in the House of Lords.

The CBA, the Bar Council and the Circuit Leaders stand together in continuing our fight to defend trial by jury. Representatives of the Bar will be attending Parliament later today (Tuesday 20th October) to speak with members about the Bill.

The changes at Third Reading

As promised, the Government itself tabled an amendment to delete the original Clause 3, which would have introduced Judge-only trials within a Crown Court Bench Division. That was a major concession which was widely welcomed.

However, that has not taken away the concerted attack on the right to trial by jury via several remaining clauses in the Bill. Those will be vigorously contested in the House of Lords.

The Bill will both remove the right to elect Crown Court trial and give the Government the power to double the maximum sentence in Magistrates’ Courts to 2 years imprisonment. The combined effect will be, by the Government’s own estimate, to transfer 25,000 cases a year, including 5,500 trials, from the Crown Court into the Magistrates’ Court.

The CBA are clear that the system of summary trial in the Magistrates’ Court is not equipped to deal with those more complex, more serious, more sensitive cases. With backlogs in the Magistrates’ Court surging upwards, the Magistrates’ Court simply could not cope in any event.

There were concerns raised in the debate about replacing the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court with a more complex, multi-stage system requiring permission to appeal. MPs highlighted the fact that on the latest figure 56% of contested appeals against conviction were successful.

Fraud is the thin end of the wedge for long and complex cases

During the Third Reading debate, MPs highlighted the impact of removing the right to trial by jury from ‘complex or lengthy cases’, beginning with fraud trials.

We have previously referred to Jonathan Fisher KC’s excellent analysis of the value of juries in fraud cases in Chapter 16 of his Government-commissioned Independent Review ‘Fraud in the Digital Age’, published in July..

Likewise, HH Geoffrey Rivlin KC, the former Resident Judge at Southwark Crown Court, who presided over some of the most important fraud cases of their day, has written in defence of the need for trial by jury.

However, an article in this week’s Sunday Times has also highlighted the fact that the measure is not just confined to fraud trials.

What the Bill allows is the removal of trial by jury in ‘lengthy or complex cases’, which is not a defined term. Although this measure would apply in the first instance only to offences of fraud, money laundering, bribery and related offences, further provisions of the Bill would give the Government the power to expand the list at a later date by statutory instrument.

Those measures are now contained in Clauses 3 and 4 and Schedule 1 of the Bill (as amended).

This power could be exercised with only the most limited form of Parliamentary scrutiny. It could be used to extend the measure to nationally significant cases, such as offences of misconduct in a public office, protest cases or terrorism. Conspiracies of all kinds could be brought into scope. Only homicide, rape and other very serious sexual offences are excluded.

It is necessary to read the small print to see why Parliamentary scrutiny for such a change would be almost non-existent. These provisions have been drafted so that they will take effect as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, inserting new provisions allowing Judge-only trials into the existing Act. The power to amend the list of offences would be a power exercised under the CJA 2003, which allows statutory instruments to be made subject only to the negative resolution procedure. That is a limited power of objection which has not been successfully used in the House of Commons since 1979. That is why opponents say that, for all practical purposes, ministers could expand the scope of Judge-only trials “at the stroke of a pen”.

This is creating a system of two-tier justice in the Crown Court, and it is a power which could be abused. We have to contemplate not only how this power could be exercised by the present administration, but how a future government might use (or abuse) the power which the Bill would grant them. The dangers of expansive executive powers being placed in the hands of politicians who are unsympathetic to the traditions of judicial and prosecutorial independence can be seen all over the world.

Treasury Counsel Recruitment – Reminder

A reminder that applications are still open for appointment as Senior Treasury Counsel and Treasury Counsel Monitorees. The application windows for both competitions close at 23:59 on 26th October 2026.

The CPS are looking to recruit the brightest and the best candidates, regardless of background or location. Applications are equally open to those who predominantly defend. Barristers applying to the scheme must have been in practice (continuously or non-continuously) for a minimum of 15 years for Senior Treasury Counsel or 10 years for Treasury Counsel Monitorees.

Application packs are now available via a request through the link on the Treasury Counsel page.

Alternatively, a recruitment pack can be requested here.

Email queries are welcome and should be directed to the Treasury Counsel Recruitment mailbox: [email protected].

Criminal Law Week: this week’s updates

Key updates from issue 37 of Criminal Law Week:

• Extradition: the civil division of the Court of Appeal considers the Secretary of State’s decision-making role under section 179(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 when determining priority between competing Portuguese and US extradition claims, with commentary: R. (Santos Coelho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, CLW/26/37/4.
• Artificial intelligence: a position statement issued by Sir Colin Birss on the judicial use of AI, complementing existing judicial AI guidance, with commentary: CLW/26/37/8.
• Contempt: whether seeking a foreign anti-suit injunction can amount to a criminal contempt: Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd and anor, CLW/26/37/3, CA (Civ Div).