Courts and Tribunals Bill — Written evidence submitted by the Bar Council (CTB24)

1

Public Bill Committee
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Bar Council Written Evidence

About Us
The Bar Council represents approximately 18,000 barristers in England and Wales. It is also
the Approved Regulator for the Bar of England and Wales. A strong and independent Bar
exists to serve the public and is crucial to the administration of justice and upholding the
rule of law.

Executive Summary
1. The current Crown Court backlog is the result of decades of under-investment, and failure
to properly manage both the court estate and the human resource required to operate the
criminal justice system at anything close to its optimal level. It has not been caused by the
availability of trial by jury for serious criminal offences, nor by the limited number of
appeals against conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ courts that are heard by the
Crown Court.
2. The Bar Council, Bar leaders from across the country (Circuits), and the Criminal Bar
Association fundamentally disagree with many aspects of the Courts and Tribunals Bill
(the Bill), particularly the plan to restrict the deeply entrenched constitutional principle of
a jury trial and to remove the right to appeals from the magistrates’ courts. We support
the vast majority of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts Parts I and II (Leveson
Review Part I and Part II) in reforming and improving the criminal justice system.
3. The criminal justice system is a delicate ecosystem that has evolved over time.
Improvements are always possible, and the Bar Council is supportive of – and has
regularly suggested – measures which will reduce the current backlog without adversely
impacting upon the quality of justice administered in the criminal courts.
4. Barristers give voice to victims, defendants and witnesses and put their lives into public
service. It is important that this is acknowledged. It is unfortunate that rhetoric appears to
be placing barristers against victims. Barristers include the prosecutors who enable victims
and complainants and witnesses to give evidence, to give their account with their rights
safeguarded by legal applications and arguments by barristers.
5. We refer to the letter from Rights of Women and around 30 NGOs around the VAWG
sector who oppose reducing jury trials:
“Jury trials are an important constitutional safeguard which help ensure fairness, legitimacy and
public confidence in the criminal justice process.”
1
6. They also point to the disproportionate impact on victims from minoritised communities
who already distrust the criminal justice system:

1 Rights of Women “Violence Against Women and Girls sector calls for the preservation of access to jury trials”
16 March 2026

2

“Restricting jury trials could decrease public confidence”2
7. Many of Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals reflect the Bar Council’s longstanding ideas . We
welcome that many of our proposals have been adopted, including the recent
announcement of the lifting of the cap on sitting days.3 However, urgent implementation
remains critical.
8. Radical changes to the availability of jury trials such as proposed in the Courts and
Tribunals Bill are unnecessary and will consume resources without bearing down on the
backlog. The retrospective provisions may also be subject to numerous legal challenges.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill – Creation of a New Court
9. Instead of introducing a court without a jury, the Bar Council proposes the creation of a
new sexual offences/domestic abuse court, together with other reforms.
10. These would reduce delays without any need to reduce jury trials. They impact directly
on vulnerable witnesses waiting for their case to be completed ( for example, expedited
trial scheme at Preston Crown Court).

Bar Council Reforms
11. These recommendations will have a significant and immediate effect and can and should
be implemented now.
12. These changes include:
• Implementing efficiency measures from Part II of the Independent Review of
the Criminal Courts Part II (Leveson Part II).4
• Creation of a sexual offences/domestic abuse court (see annex 1 ) – with a
jury, instead of the CCBD/Swift Court. It is working operationally and
reducing delays and supported by national work on domestic abuse case
listing (e.g. Preston Crown Court and CCIG listing reform) without the need
to reduce jury trial.
• Reclassification of certain offences to summary only (see table) – moving the
threshold of cases heard in the magistrates’ court e.g. make assault emergency
worker summary only.5
• Prisoner Escort Custody Services (PECS)/Prison reform – hours are lost each
day due to delays caused by PECS and prisons failing to produce defendants
to court on time and/or into the dock on time. A contract that fits court
requirements is needed together with greater prison efficiency.
6
• Remove cases from the backlog – this requires the CPS to proactively remove
cases that no longer are in the public interest to prosecute, lesser charges

2 Rights of Women “Violence Against Women and Girls sector calls for the preservation of access to jury trials”
16 March 2026
3 MoJ “Highest ever courts funding deal agreed to deliver faster, fairer justice for victims” 24 February 2026
4 Sir Brian Leveson “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2” 4 February 2026
5 Bar Council “Bar Council response to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts” January 2025
6 Penalties into contracts/disclosure of times of vans at prisons and leaving prisons/requirement to give a time
estimate to the court when late.

3

should be accepted or no evidence offered for other reasons (in consultation
with complainants/victims). There has been successful reduction of the backlog
in courts where there is pro -active management of cases between police, CPS
and judge. This happened in the South West during Covid 7, and has been
successful in courts such as Woolwich Crown Court, Liverpool Crown Court
and Preston Crown Court. It requires a specific case progression court which
can be accommodated in existing structures (no need for primary legislation).
• Invest in the Court estate – time is lost due to poor maintenance in courts (loss
of power, floods, technology failure). Immediate investment is required in the
court estate, including sufficient technology assistants.
• Implement more out of court resolutions – divert prosecutions following the
implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026.
• Amend Goodyear (currently empowers a judge to indicate the maximum
sentence that would be imposed) – to enable judges to give a realistic indication
of sentence at an early stage (it requires only a Practice Direction) and so
incentivise guilty pleas.
• Allow incentivisation of 40% reduction for guilty pleas to take effect and
expand “first opportunity” – apply guilty plea sentence credit before a retrial.
• Reintroduce Old Style Committal (see Annex 1).
• Urgently implement the increase in legal aid (Government announced up to
£34 million including VAT
8) – as a step to recover barristers back into criminal
law and tackle adjournments due to lack of barristers.

Opposition and support for elements of the Bill
The Bar Council opposes:
13. Removing a defendant’s right to elect Crown Court trial for all cases which are
triable either way (Clause 1-2)
i. Reason: that would compound the impact of the measures below.
14. Introduction of judge-alone trials for offences which may result in sentences of up
to 3 years’ imprisonment (Clause 3-5)
i. Reason: while the time savings are extremely uncertain (and have been
overestimated by Government), the adverse impact on the quality of justice
administered by the courts and the public perception of the criminal justice
system would be severe and disproportionate. It simply moves the backlog
from one court jurisdiction to another.
15. Introduction of judge-alone trials for fraud and related offences (Clause 4)
i. Reason: such offences often turn on questions (such as dishonesty) which a jury
is better placed to answer than a single judge. There is a real prospect that any
time savings would be cancelled out by the time by judges spent
writing reasoned judgments.
16. Increasing magistrates’ courts sentencing powers (Clause 6)

7 MoJ data from these successes driven by one CPS prosecutor on the Western Circuit should be considered.
8 MoJ “Deputy Prime Minister to Announce 'Swift and Fair Justice” 2 December 2025

4

i. Reason: this would merely transfer the burden from one over-stretched part of
the system to another.9
17. Reforms to appeals from the magistrates’ court (Clause 7)
i. Reason: this would remove a vital safeguard against the well documented
deficiencies of summary justice. At present around 40% of such appeals are
successful.10
18. However, the Bar does support:
1. Restrictions on the admissibility of evidence of ‘sexual behaviour’,
compensation claims, and purported previous false allegations by
complainants (Clauses 8-11)
2. New measures in respect of special measures directions (Clauses 12-16)
3. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement (Clause 17)

Reforms that will work now
19. In January 2025 in our submission to the Leveson Review
11,we set out a range of reform
measures to reduce the current backlog without adversely impacting upon the quality
of justice administered in the criminal courts.12
20. In particular, we support:
1. Opening all the courts so they can hear cases (the recent Government
announcement of removing the cap on sitting days is welcome13)
2. Intense court listing and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) proactive case
ownership (shown to reduce the backlog)
3. Revising the contract with Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) to
ensure that defendants are delivered to the dock on time
4. Better use of technology
5. Properly resourcing the courts and legal aid
6. A new sexual offences/domestic abuse court

21. An Institute for Government (IfG) report highlighted that “the potential benefits of
returning Crown Court productivity to 2016 levels substantially outweigh the likely demand
savings from the structural reforms the government is proposing. That is where the government
should start.”
14

9 Magistrates’ Court backlog July-September 2025 peak at 373,084 cases. MoJ “Criminal court statistics quarterly:
July to September 2025” 18 December 2025
10 Sir Brian Leveson “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1” 9 July 2025, p188.
11 Bar Council “Bar Council Leveson Review submission – executive summary” January 2025
12 Bar Council “Leveson Review Submission Executive Summary”
and Bar Council response to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts
13 Bar Council “Bar Council welcomes courts sitting at maximum capacity but warns against reducing jury trial”
February 2026
14 Institute for Government “Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” 21 January
2026

5

22. The report also states that there is a serious risk that the Government’s proposed
structural reforms “could backfire and cause further decline in both productivity and
performance. The reforms remove various safeguards for defendants, including the right to
choose a jury trial and the automatic right of appeal from magistrates’ courts.“
15
23. The Bar Council continues to lead change and modernisation both within the Bar and
wider justice system. In our Remote Justice report 16, we analysed remote hearings
(decreasing since the pandemic). Barristers led the change and generally considered
increasing remote hearings to be a broadly positive step (with appropriate caveats
around access to justice issues e.g. interpreters).
24. This report was cited in Leveson Part II Vol 2, where Sir Brian concluded “there is
potential to increase remote participation across criminal courts in the future, bringing
efficiency gains by reducing PECS transfer delays and freeing up courtrooms for hearings and
trials which continue to be heard in person .”
17 The efficiencies in Leveson Part II and
investment in the criminal justice system are immediate remedies and should be
allowed to take effect.
25. We agree with the IfG and consider that radical changes to the availability of jury trials
as proposed in the Bill will produce serious adverse consequences that have not
properly been considered by the Government. There has been no pilot and t he
estimates of court saving are disputed by the IFG and based on vague qualitative
analysis.18 At best, the IfG agrees that the Government modelling is sound, but that
relies on several assumptions – “some of which are highly uncertain”.19
26. Instead of draining valuable time and resources attempting to force through an
unpopular, untested and poorly evidenced change to our jury system – and one that
will only have effect, if any, in 2028/2029.
20 We urge the Government to focus on the
changes we know will make a difference now – see detail in Leveson Part 2.21

Part 1 – Procedure in the Criminal Courts
(To be read alongside Table of Amendments, Annex 1)
Clause 1-2: Determining mode of trial
Proposed change
27. This would abolish the right of election for all triable either -way offences, so the
decision on jurisdiction will be made solely by the magistrates’ courts.
The Bar’s position
28. Opposed: The proposal would compound the problems caused by other measures in
this Bill, which would result from the transfer of a large number of relatively serious
cases from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ courts.

15 Institute for Government “Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials” 9 March 2026
16 The Bar Council “A lens on justice: The move to remote justice 2020-2024” May 2024
17 Sir Brian Leveson “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts – Part II: Volume 2” 4 February 2026, p457
18 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p34
19 Institute for Government “Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials” 9 March 2026
20 Rt Hon Mr David Lammy MP “Courts and Tribunals Bill, Second Reading” 10 March 2026
21 Sir Brian Leveson, “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 2”, 4 February 2026

6

29. The choice to elect works well and maintains a balance between magistrates’ court and
Crown Court and means that the magistrates’ courts are not entirely overwhelmed.
Context
30. There has been chronic underinvestment in the magistrates’ courts. Justice in the
magistrates’ courts is often criticised for poorly serving people within the system.22
31. Magistrates’ courts are not the holy grail of efficiency and fairness 23 and in the 12
months up to September 2025 there were 19,998 ineffective trials. 24 Their backlog is
substantial and currently stands at 373,084. 25 The government’s Impact Assessment
(IA) assumes that magistrates court trials require 4 hours, and guilty plea cases require
30 minutes. It also states if planned recruitment is not successful, “there may be
insufficient magistrates to deliver the additional 8,500 sitting days required”.
26
32. The IfG analysis assesses the likely saving of court time under the new measures to be
enacted in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to be in the region of 1-2%.27 It refers to a net
saving time as 9-13%28 but the timeline is uncertain as reduction to juries will not take
effect for years and so will not impact on ongoing delays. The IfG also doubts that
magistrates will actually hear such a high proportion of cases as projected.
33. The IA states, “ overall the reforms will reduce demand on Crown Court time by almost
20%”.29 However, it is based on “highly uncertain” assumptions.30
34. The IfG report suggests improving court productivity as a more effective way to
reduce the backlog. It states “The Crown Court is hearing almost 20% fewer hours per
sitting day so far in 2025/26 than it was in 2016/17. If it had got through an equivalent number
of cases per day in 2024 as in 2016, the case backlog would have fallen by at least a few
thousand”.
31 The IfG also note that “ the potential benefits of returning Crown Court
productivity to 2016 levels substantially outweigh the likely demand savings from structural
reforms proposed in the Bill”.32
35. We agree with the IfG. Productivity improvements can also be actioned right away
with targeted, localised, and potentially low-cost interventions.

Clause 3-5Trial on indictment without a jury
Proposed change

22 Transform Justice “Magistrates’ courts – an opaque and underexamined world” 22 May 2024
23 See Transform Justice “Beyond reasonable delay: efficiency in London magistrates’ courts” 23 January 2026
24 Criminal Bar Association “Monday Message 09.03.26” 9 March 2026
25 MoJ “Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025” 18 December 2025
26 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p34
27 Institute for Government “Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” 21 January
2026
28 Institute for Government “Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials” 9 March 2026
29 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p18.
30 Institute for Government “Beyond reasonable doubt?: Reviewing proposed reforms to jury trials” 9 March 2026
31 Institute for Government “Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” 21 January
2026
32 Ibid.

7

36. Where the likely sentence is up to 3 years’ imprisonment the person will lose a trial by
jury33 and will be tried by one judge.
The Bar’s position
37. Opposed: The Bar is fundamentally against the removal of the right to trial by jury (as
established in statute) for defendants facing likely sentences of up to three years. These
are not low -level offences. It will make no difference, even on the Government’s
estimate, to the backlog for many years, if at all. It will affect under 2% of cases but
with a potentially devastating impact on the perception of fairness of the proceedings
for those involved in those cases and likely will increase appeals.34 It is overlooked that
much of the criminal justice system runs on confidence, trust and cooperation.
Adverse impact on child defendants has not been considered.
Crown Court Bench Division – Flawed Modelling and Court Time
38. The proposed Crown Court Bench Division35 introduces an extra layer of hearings and
complication, including ability to return to the submissions on appropriate jurisdiction
– with a Single Judge or Jury. It does not take into account how cases often evolve with
defendants being arrested at differ ent times. It could result in further litigation at an
interlocutory stage.
39. At Leeds Crown Court, as well as in other courts across England and Wales, some
trials last 2-3 hours enabling two juries to be in retirement whilst a judge sits with a
jury on a third trial.
36 Additionally, the time required for judges to write (for both a
conviction and an acquittal) has been significantly understated. It is not akin to the
time taken to write a summing up where no decisions are required about why a piece
of evidence is to be preferred or discounted. No account has been taken of time saved
by a judge able to continue with other work whilst one or two juries are in retirement.
40. Analysis by the IfG has shown that these proposals will make an overall difference
only of 1% or 2% to the speed at which cases are heard in the Crown Court. 37 The
proposed changes will only have an effect, if they have any at all, in 2028/2029.38 There
are other measures which can be implemented now and will make a difference much
earlier.
41. A fundamental issue is the binary choice presented. Do nothing or do the proposed
reforms. Presenting the costs, timeframes and benefits of a range of policy options
would be logical and sensible, particularly when considering liberty of a person.

33 The Explanatory Notes and supporting documents to the Bill provide no schedule or annex. They state that, “a
Crown Court judge will assess whether the offence or offences to be tried are likely to attract a custodial sentence of three
years or less”, implying that there will not be a definite list of offence categories but rather an assessment of each
case.
34 Institute for Government “Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” 21 January
2026
35 No longer called a “swift court”
36 See also, His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, Submission to the Justice Committee: Reform of the Criminal Court,
January 2026
37 Institute for Government “Trial and error?: The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand” 21 January
2026
38 Justice Committee, Work of the Lord Chancellor, 16 December 2025

8

42. The Treasury Green Book 39 recommends that a short list should generally include
around five options as this means decision makers are presented with genuine choices
rather than a single pre-determined outcome.
43. Also, according to a YouGov poll following the Government’s announcement in
December 2025, 60% of Britons said they feel positively about the jury service. 40 The
Government’s proposals go further than Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations in that
they do not include two magistrates sitting with the judge.
41
44. There is no information on assessment of the number of magistrates, judges, criminal
barristers or solicitors required to support increased productivity or the planned shift
in responsibilities.
Example scenario (if reforms go ahead)
45. Consider a 19-year-old student living in a house with other students. A small amount
of ‘spice’ is found in their room, and they are charged with possession with intent to
supply. They are of good character. Under the sentencing guidelines, they would be
facing up to 26 weeks in custody. It is lifechanging. Their career would be over before
it began. They want a jury to hear their defence that another student had the drugs
and had stashed them in their room. They will no longer have the right to elect jury
trial. A person with previous convictions for drugs will be entitled to a jury trial due
to the risk of a sentence exceeding three years’ imprisonment.

Clause 4 – Trial on indictment without a jurycomplex or lengthy cases
Proposed change
46. This would give the Crown Court the power to direct that certain types of complex
and/or lengthy cases be heard by a judge alone if it is in the public interest to do so.
The Bar’s position
47. Opposed: Juries should be retained for serious and complex fraud cases. There is a
real prospect that time would not be saved because of the time required to
write adequately reasoned judgments. While the process of (a) considering the
evidence, (b) reaching a decision, and (c) writing up the judgment is being undertaken
the judge will not be free to sit on another trial or take other work in court. That will
result in a reduction of court sitting days when compared with the current position,
which allows judges to remain active dealing with case management hearings - and
even conducting short trials - while a jury is in retirement.
Context
48. In most fraud trials the case will turn on whether the prosecution can prove that the
defendant was dishonest which will be judged against the standards of ordinary
reasonable people. It will result in a decision that is representative of the views of the
public, compared to by an individual alone. Many of the cases in scope have potential
sentences of over 10 years in prison.

39 The Green Book (2026), p26
40 YouGov “Jury service leaves Britons with positive opinion of justice system” 3 December 2025
41 Courts and Tribunals Bill (as introduced)

9

49. This proposal also significantly deviates from the safeguards put forward by Sir Brian
Leveson, who specifically suggested that:42
1. Any such proposal could properly be piloted first (Part 1, Chapter 9, para.86),
2. The definition of serious and complexity should be clear and based on existing
legal definitions that would provide the correct framework for identifying the
pool of cases that would be better tried without a jury (para. 91),
3. The guiding principle should be the ‘interests of justice’ (para. 94) and,
4. Fundamentally, that the decision should be capable of being subject to
interlocutory appeal (para. 95).
50. Further, the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences 43 (report by
Jonathan Fisher KC44), which examines juries in fraud cases is awaited and should be
considered. What is the position if it reaches a different conclusion to Sir Brian
Leveson?

Clause 6Increase in maximum custodial sentence in magistrates’ court
Proposed change
51. A power to extend magistrates’ court sentencing powers up to 2 years’ imprisonment
for single and multiple triable either-way offences.
The Bar’s position
52. Opposed: Summary trial is designed for the purpose of dispensing swift justice in low-
level cases. The extension of summary justice to cases in which a defendant could
receive up to 2 years’ imprisonment – particularly when combined with the removal
of a right to e lect Crown Court trial, and the removal of a right of automatic appeal
against summary conviction – is a comprehensive rolling back of safeguards.45
53. The introduction of a presumption against custodial sentences under 1 year and the
extension of suspended sentences for terms of imprisonment up to 3 years is a
provision expressly not applying to children. It may lead to adverse outcomes for
children.
Context
54. The backlog in the magistrates’ courts is 373,084 and is accelerating. It increased by
17% in the last year
46. This change will move pressure from one stretched part of the
criminal justice system to another.
55. The price of summary justice is most fundamentally reflected in the inequality of
outcome between different ethnicities. The Lammy Review of 2017 explained that,
compared with the “success story” of juries, who did not discriminate between Black,
Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and white defendants when returning verdicts,

42 Sir Brian Leveson “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1” 9 July 2025
43 Home Office “Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences” 20 March 2025
44 Home Office Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: second report submitted January 2026
45 At present: proceedings are not recorded; the availability of legal aid is limited so that defendants are often
unrepresented (or are represented by very junior practitioners); individual prosecutors handle large volumes of
cases (often conducting several trials in one day); and a defendant has an automatic right of appeal to the Crown
Court by way of re-hearing.
46 MoJ “Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025” 18 December 2025

10

those tried in the magistrates’ courts were not so fortunate. In particular, the report
noted “some worrying disparities for BAME women” .47 Black, Asian, mixed ethnic and
Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.
56. Eroding access to legal representation: A significant cohort of defendants who would have
received the benefit of legal aid in the Crown Court would now, under these reforms,
be ineligible for legal aid in the magistrates' courts. This is due to the lower threshold
for eligibility in the magistr ates’ Court (those whose annual disposable income is
between £22,325 and £37,500). 48 Many will therefore be required to represent
themselves which will add to the length of proceedings.
57. Lack of available magistrates: The obvious (and intended) effect of this proposed reform,
particularly if coupled with the abolition of a defendant's right to elect Crown Court
trial, will be to increase the workload of the magistrates’ court. However, presently,
there are not sufficient magistrates to accommodate this. In January 2022, the largest
magistrate recruitment campaign in the 650-year history of magistrates was launched
to recruit an additional 4,000 magistrates.
49 As of 1 April 2025 there were 14,636
magistrates in post across England and Wales. 50 This is around 2,000 more than in
April 2022.51 This shows some progress, but a significant shortfall against the target.
58. The IfG in its 2025 performance tracker report identified that “[the number of]
magistrates fell dramatically from 2010/11 to 2021/22, more than halving (down 54%). They
have since begun to recover, but in 2024/25 were still 46% below the number in 2010/11.” 52
The Government’s own impact assessment concedes that the proposed reforms could
not be accommodated within the existing cohort: o ne of the identified “risks and
uncertainties” in the Impact Assessment 53 is that if planned recruitment was not
successful, “there may be insufficient magistrates to deliver the additional 8,500 sitting days
required”. The dearth of magistrates is of course in contrast to the limitless pool of
willing and available jurors.

Clause 7Appeals from magistrates’ courts
Proposed change
59. To replace to the automatic right of appeal from magistrates’ court to the Crown Court
with a permission stage.
The Bar’s position
60. Opposed: The Bar is fundamentally against this change. The proposed change would
remove a vital safeguard against wrongful summary conviction and excessive (or
unlawful) sentences imposed by magistrates. The consequence risks adding to the
burden on the criminal courts rather than reducing it.

47 David Lammy MP “Lammy Review” 2017. p.32
48 Legal Aid Agency “Criminal legal aid: means testing” updated 3 February 2025
49 MoJ “Magistrate recruitment campaign launched” 24 January 2022
50 MoJ Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and current post-holders - 2025 Statistics
23 July 2025
51 There were 12, 506 magistrates in post as at 1 April 2022. See Table 3.5 Diversity of the judiciary: 2022 statistics
- GOV.UK
52 Institute for Government Performance Tracker 2025: Criminal courts 23 October 2025
53 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p34.

11

Context
61. At present, there is no restriction on a defendant’s right to appeal a conviction or
sentence imposed in a magistrates’ court, and the defendant will receive a re-hearing
of their case in the Crown Court. The right does not appear to be exercised frivolously
or vexatiously.
62. In Part 1 of the Leveson Review, Sir Brian Leveson stated “that in 2024 the proportion of
magistrates’ court decisions that were appealed stood at approximately 0.4%” and “the total
number of defendants appealing against their conviction was 2,487, of which 1,009 were
allowed (41%). The total number of defendants pursuing an appeal against their sentence was
2,459, of which 1,088 were allowed (44%).”
54
63. The success rates of appeals under the present system do not suggest that reform is
necessary – rather, they suggest that the existing right of appeal is of real practical
importance and safeguards justice.
64. The removal of the safeguard of automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court from
the Youth Court will impact adversely on children charged with very serious offences
such as rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm and tried in the Youth Court.

Clause 8-11Admissibility of evidence
Proposed change
65. These concern restrictions on the admissibility of evidence of ‘sexual behaviour’,
compensation claims, and purported previous false allegations by complainants.
The Bar’s position:
66. In favour: The Bar welcomes these provisions which provide appropriate safeguards
for victims and for fairness of trials. They reflect proposals made by the Law
Commission in its recent review of the admissibility of evidence in relation to sexual
offences, which were informed by the Bar Council’s response to the Commission's
consultation. They also provide appropriate clarification in statute of some of the
recent case-law in this complex area of law.
67. Clause 11 makes specific provision for the admissibility of previous domestic abuse
offending. However, in practice such evidence is likely to be admitted in any event
under current bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and so is
unnecessary.
68. Clause 8 - Add in a provision allowing admissibility of material if all parties agree.
69. Clause 8(5) (1A) – clarify the meaning in the proposed 1A of ‘part of the event which
is the subject matter of the charge’ to include ‘any behaviour or communication
preceding the charge that is connected to the event itself) – encompasses messaging
etc planning sex that currently does require a s41 application.
70. Clause 9 - change test to relevance rather than substantial probative value.
71. Insert amendment to make it clear that where a compensation claim has been made or
an attempt to make claim has been made disclosure of the details of that claim is

54 Sir Brian Leveson “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1” 9 July 2025, p188.

12

relevant notwithstanding an application for leave has not been made – an application
cannot be made without proper disclosure first.
72. Clause 10 – is it necessary? Often the strength or weakness of the suggestion of falsity
can only be determined after disclosure – introducing ‘merely’ could result in a refusal
to even consider examining the material.
73. Clause 11 – does it really add anything to the existing provisions – is it wise to begin
to bring in specific offence types as creating a presumption? Thin end of the wedge
argument – i.e. will the next development be ‘sexual offences’ added?

Clause 12 to 16Special measures directions
74. In favour: The new measures in respect of special measures directions are also to be
welcomed. Our experience is that these provisions are likely to assist some
complainants in giving their evidence in an environment that is as supportive and as
safe as possible within an adversarial court system.

Part 2 – Other provision about courts and tribunals
Clause 17: Welfare of the child: repeal of presumption of parental involvement
Proposed change:
75. To repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989
which, in its current form, states that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the
court must presume that the involvement of a parent (who can be involved without
risk of harm) will further the child’s welfare.

The Bar’s position76. In favour: We welcome the provision to remove the statutory presumption of
parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. Evidence has shown that the
presumption can operate in ways that do not reflect the best interests of children,
particularly in families affected by violence and abuse. However, legislative reform
alone will not be sufficient to address these issues. Years of underfunding of the
family courts and reductions in the scope and availability of legal aid have had a
significant impact on the operation of the family justice system, resulting in large
numbers of unrepresented parties, longer proceedings and sometimes unsafe
outcomes for children. For the reform to be effective, this change must be supported
by an adequately resourced and properly functioning family justice system.
55
Delays
77. The backlog spiked by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic and rose a further
48% after the onset of the pandemic. 56 Most recent figures show the Crown Court
backlog to be 76,619. 57 Delays can, and often are, caused by factors completely
unrelated to juries. Reasons for delay recurrently include prisoners failing to be
delivered; court buildings being unfit for use; lack of advocates and judges.

55 Bar Council “Review of Civil Legal Aid” February 2024; and Bar Council “System Overload: a report on family
legal aid” December 2025
56 National Audit Office, Reducing the Backlog in Criminal Courts Session 2021-22, HC 732, 22 October 2021
57 MoJ “Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025” 18 December 2025

13

78. It is important to have accurate consideration of delays and that not all courts have the
same delays. For example, Wales has a backlog that is manageable. Further, the issues
with longer and more complex trials relate to those that will continue to be tried with
a jury.58 This undermines further the focus on cases where the sentence might be up to
three years’ imprisonment.
Rape Cases/Domestic Abuse Cases
79. Tackling delays in rape cases requires looking at where the delays are occurring,
including the substantial delay in investigation and charge, before the case gets to
court.
80. The median time from receipt at Crown Court to completion for all rape cases in the
third quarter (Q3) of 2025 was 365 days (one year) and for adult rape cases was 338
days (around 11.5 months).59 This is lower than it was in Q3 2024. Substantial delays
are at the pre-court stage and there should be a focus on delays in investigation by
police and charge by the Crown Prosecution Service. It is understood not to be
correct that rape cases are being listed in 2030; the majority are listed in 2027.60
81. Set up a new sexual offences/domestic abuse court.
Prisoner Escort Custody Services (PECS)
82. There is also the lack of modelling on the changes needed to be made to PECS. The
Impact Assessment estimated that the proposed reforms will increase the number of
journeys PECS suppliers required to complete. With the existing PECS delays, it is
concerning that there are no further proposals on the changes needed for PECS
beyond saying that it is a “normal part of procedure to meet changing operational
needs”
61.
83. Penalties should be introduced into apparently poor-quality contracts to introduce
efficiency and reduce delay.

Bar Council
25 March 2026

58 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p22
59 MoJ “Criminal court statistics quarterly: July to September 2025” 18 December 2025
60 The Standard “Thousands of trials will not be heard until at least 2028, data reveals” 27 February 2026. The MoJ
will have this data.
61 MoJ “Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court Reform) Impact Assessment” 24 February 2026, p26.

Public Bill Committee
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Bar Council Amendments
Clause Bar Council and
Criminal Bar
Association
Position
Clauses Opposed
***
Amendment Proposals if Clauses retained
Explanatory Statement
***
Amendment proposal explanatory
statement
1, 2 and 3
Removing the
right to elect
trial by
jury/trial on
indictment
Delete Clauses 1,
2 and 3
Clauses 1,2 and 3 are opposed.

No amendments or substitutions are proposed to Clauses 1 and 2.

Page 1, line 4, remove Clause 1.
Page 4, line 16, remove Clause 2
Page 5, line 12 remove Clause 3

***

Only if clause 3 is retained, which is opposed, then the following
safeguards must be added:
Page 5, line 25 omit “condition” and substitute “conditions”
Page 5, line 28 omit subsection (5) and substitute:

Reasons for oppositionThis is moving the
burden of one over-stretched part of the
criminal justice system to another (the
magistrates’ courts – backlog 373,000 –
already drastically accelerating each year;
17% increase over the last year and the
highest on record
1), whilst potentially
diminishing the quality of justice
administered2

***

Amendment proposed if clause retained as
currently the perverse result is a person
with previous convictions is more likely to

1 Criminal Court Statistics quarterly: July – September 2025.
2 https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/publications/

(5) The conditions in this subsection are met in relation to a defendant if:

(a) the defendant, if convicted of the offence or offences for which the
defendant is to be tried, would be likely to receive a sentence of
imprisonment or detention of more than three years for the offence or
offences (taken together) and
(b) the defendant is of good character (never been convicted of an
imprisonable offence and/or a person would be treated as a rehabilitated
person, section 1 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) or
(c) If convicted of the offence or offences for which the defendant is to be
tried, would likely suffer significant reputational damage or their
employment or professional qualifications would be adversely affected.
(d) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity and/or
complexity of a case may increase.
(e) exceptional circumstances exist.”

Page 5, line 30 after s.74A (6) add:

(7) The above provisions on allocation for trial without a jury do not apply to
cases where a defendant already has elected to be tried in the Crown Court.

Page 8 line 21, at the end, add:

(h) Fairness when considering the rights and circumstances of the defendant
(i) Interests of justice

Page 9, line 17 remove “no” and substitute “is a”
Page 9 line 18 after “without a hearing” add “A hearing must be held to
consider reallocation unless the prosecution and defence waive their right to the
hearing.”
continue with a jury trial. A conviction can
be life changing. Either way offences include
offences that are serious and evidence may
not be fully disclosed at this stage. An
exceptional circumstances clause takes into
account individuals rather than a blanket
exclusion.

4 and 5
Trial on
indictment
without a jury
– lengthy and
complex cases

Consequential
amendments
relating to
clause 3 and 4
Delete Clauses 4
and 5
Clauses 4 and 5 are opposed
Page 10 line 5 remove Clause 4
Page 14 line 7 remove Clause 5

***

If these clauses are retained, which is opposed, there must be minimum
safeguards:

Substitutions and AdditionsmS42A
Page 10 line 11 -S42A (3)(a) – remove the ‘or’ and change to “and” – so it reads
‘length and complexity’
Page 10 line 35 add (d) the length of the trial is agreed by both defence and
prosecution to be a minimum of 5 months
Page 11 line 1 remove “no” and add “a” so it reads “there is a right of appeal”

s42B Page 11 line 39 add:
(k) Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving s2B RTA 1988
(l) Causing serious injury by dangerous driving s1A RTA 1988
(m) Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving s2C RTA
1988
(n) Health and safety offences resulting in a fatality or offences connected
to a fatality
(o) Offences contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act where a death arises
(p) All sexual offences and those which lead to notification requirements
upon the Sexual Offences Register.

Appeal is a fundamental safeguard and
should be included against an allocation
decision.

Increasing the scope of reallocation will
avoid last minute change of allocation
decisions based on prosecution offering no
evidence on counts just before a jury is
sworn. This is essential to safeguard against
tactical decisions by prosecutors.

Those who have elected have elected in the
expectation of a jury trial.

If the case is allocated on the basis that the
sentence will not exceed three years’
imprisonment, unfairness will result if the
Judge can then impose any sentence, after
they have convicted. It may lead to abuse of
process.

***
Section 42A(3)(a) amendment as cases will
be rare and sentence could still be very high
(unlike the 3yr limit for other cases)

The list of excluded offences is incomplete
and illogical
6 Delete Clause 6 Opposed

The summary justice procedures are
structured to address cases that result in

Increase in
maximum
custodial
sentence in
magistrates
court
***

Only if this clause is retained, which is opposed, amend:

Page 15, line 36, section(1A) omit (c) and (d)
Page 15, line 28, after “regulations” insert “made by affirmative resolution”
shorter and less complicated periods of
imprisonment

The limit of 12 months fits with the
presumption of a suspended sentence under
the Sentencing Act 2025.

***

Parliament should retain oversight of
increasing the powers of magistrates.
7 and
Schedule 2
Restricting
appeals from
the
magistrates’
court (schedule
2)
Delete Clause 7 Opposed
Page 17, line 13 remove clause 7

***

Only if clause 7 is retained, which is opposed, amendPage 38 line 33 add “against sentence” after “grant permission to appeal”
Page 39 line 1 add “and (5)” after “subject to subsection (3)”
Page 39 line 11 add (5) There shall be a right to renew the permission to appeal
orally”.
Page 39 line at the end add (6) Grounds of appeal may raise issues of procedure
and fact arising in the trial as well as law.
It is not necessary.

***

Where a decision is made “on paper” there
should be a safeguard of a right to renew
the appeal orally without permission.

Clarify the level of Judge as a Judge the level
of Circuit Judge or “ticketed” Recorder who
determines the appeal.
8-11
Restricting
admissibility of
evidence of
‘sexual’
behaviour,
Support with
amendments
Support with amendments:
Delete page 21 line 33 onwards Clause 10

Page 17 line 20 onwards

• Add in a provision makes material admissible upon agreement
of all parties.
Opposed bringing in specific offence types
as creating a presumption.

***

compensation
claims and
purported false
allegations by
complainants

• Page 19 line 12–add to ‘part of the event which is the subject matter of
the charge’ the amendment ‘including any behaviour or
communication preceding the charge that is connected to the event
itself’
• Page 20 line 12 remove “substantial probative value” and substitute
“relevance”
• Page 20 line 32 add “where a compensation claim has been made or an
attempt to make a claim has been made, disclosure of the details of that
claim is relevant notwithstanding an application for leave has not been
made.”

The amendment to clause 8 (5) encompasses
messaging etc in relation to sex that
currently does require a s41 application.

Clause 10 – unnecessary. Often the strength
or weakness of the suggestion of falsity can
only be determined after disclosure –
introducing ‘merely’ could result in a refusal
to even consider examining the material

An application cannot be made without
proper disclosure first.

Clause 11 – it doesn’t add anything to the
existing provisions.
12-16
Special
Measures
directions
Support with
amendments
Support with amendments:

Page 27 line 38 add (7) Disclosure of the details of the connection between the
‘supporter’ and the complainant are required prior to seeking the court’s
agreement of the witness supporter

17
Welfare of the
Child: removal
of the
presumption of
parental
involvement
Support Support

Bar Council New Clauses
Clause Alternative / Amendment Proposals Explanatory Statement
Bar Council NC1
A reintroduction of the old-style committal
Magistrates can only commit to the Crown Court
when the case is evidentially ready
This would save considerable time in the Crown
Court
Bar Council NC2
Create Specialist Sexual Offences / Domestic
Abuse Courts with jury.

Trial by specialist judge, and jury
Additional training for jurors
Specialist accredited training required for defence
and prosecution advocates
Specialist court facilities aimed at comfort and
safety of complainants, and accommodating
special measures
Stricter time limits on case preparation, more
active case management
Streamlined national protocol on approach to
third party material review and disclosure with
strict time limits applicable to mirror service of
the case.
Fixed trial dates

These courts will directly impact in reducing the
waiting of vulnerable victims/complainants and
obviate any need (which has not been shown) to
remove a jury and set up the Crown Bench
Division Court.
Bar Council NC3
Prioritisation for such Sexual / Domestic Abuse
cases
A provision (possibly with a sunset clause)
For qualified cases (RASSO / Domestic Abuse) -
where defendant is on bail -to be given priority
and heard by the Specialist Court (sitting with a
jury) before custody cases (this could be an
These courts will directly impact in reducing the
waiting of vulnerable victims/complainants and
obviate any need (which has not been shown) to
remove a jury and set up the Crown Bench
Division Court.

amendment to s.22 of the Pros of Offenders Act
1985)

Bar Council NC4
Increasing incentives for guilty plea
Increase the incentive to 40%.
This credit to be available for longer than “the
first opportunity” – to align with the proposal on
committals.
Include a guilty plea incentive before a retrial.
Incentivises and reduces trials.
Crown prosecution service also is required to take
ownership of cases and review overcharged
indictments.
Addresses those cases where the prosecution need
to start a second (or third) time.
Reclassify offences and move the threshold of
offences that are in the Crown Court to summary
offences – see below.

Bar Council NC5 Reclassify offences and move the threshold of
some either way offences to summary offences –
see page below.

Potential Offences to Re-Classify
1. Criminal damage – increase value to £10k s1 Criminal damage Act 1971
2. Assault emergency worker – s29 Assaults on Emergency Workers Act 2018
3. Simple Possession of Class A, B and C drugs s5(3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
4. Racially aggravated s4 Public Order Act
5. Racially/religiously aggravated assault - s29 Crime and Disorder act 1998
6. Racially/religious aggravated harassment - S31 Crime and Disorder Act 1971
7. Racially/religiously aggravated stalking without violence – s32 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
8. Breach of ASBOs or CBOS s1 Crime and Disorder Act 1988
9. Breach of Restraining Orders/ Harassment injunctions (possibly up to 3rd breach) - s5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997
10. Breach of non-molestation orders – Family law Act 1996
11. Malicious Communications offences – s1 malicious Communications Act 1988
12. Dangerous Dog Act offences (where no injury to a person is caused) – s3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Bar Council
25 March 2026