About
A free weekly collection of criminal law links - for practitioners, law students, and anyone with an interest in the criminal justice system of England and Wales.
Curated by Sam Willis, a barrister at 5 King's Bench Walk.
News
Jury Reforms
... The Deputy Prime Minister announced the reforms in Parliament today, bringing the system back from the brink of total collapse and regaining the trust of both victims and the public.
- New ‘Swift Courts’ will see cases with a likely sentence of three years or less heard by a Judge alone - estimated to take 20% less time than a jury trial.
- Handing courts the power to decide where cases are heard no longer allowing criminals to game the system and torment their victims.
- Guaranteed jury trials for the most serious and almost all indictable offences – including rape, murder, aggravated burglary, blackmail, people trafficking, grievous bodily harm and the most serious drug offences.
- Judge-only trials for particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences freeing up jurors who have to give up months of their lives to hear particularly burdensome cases;
- Giving magistrates the power to hand down sentences of up to 18 months so more cases can be heard by magistrates, freeing up Crown Court time for the most serious offences. This could go up to two years if needed.
These changes will mean around a quarter of cases that would otherwise have to wait to be heard by a jury will be fast-tracked to go before a judge, freeing up jury trials for where they are most needed... On top of today’s court reforms, victims will be better supported through the process with a half a billion-pound investment in vital support services. This will see £550 million go directly into specialist services that offer practical and emotional support to victims and witnesses... To recognise the vital role of the legal sector in rescuing the courts from this crisis, criminal legal aid advocates will get up to a £34 million funding increase every year. This comes on top of an up to £92 million per year boost for criminal solicitors confirmed earlier this week...
'Crucial reforms to give rape victims a fairer trial'
Victims of rape and serious sexual violence will receive greater support and will no longer be vilified by previous experiences of sexual violence under government reforms to give survivors a fairer trial... To clamp down on pernicious rape myths and make sure victims are believed, previous allegations of rape made by the victim will now not be used as evidence in favour of the accused unless proven genuinely valuable. A new higher admissibility threshold will also apply to divulging the sexual history of the victim – something which causes further emotional harm and distracts from the real issue at hand. This will simplify legislation already in place and require that judges consider that the use of sexual history as evidence may perpetuate rape myths...
Other measures being taken forward by the government following the Law Commission’s research into improving victim experience during sexual offence trials include: Previous compensation claims for experiences of crime by victims will also come with a much higher admissibility threshold at trial to prevent already distressed victims being branded “money-motivated”. Recognising that most sexual offences happen in the home, it will be enshrined in law that previous convictions evidencing domestic abuse can be used at trial for further domestic abuse related offences...
Other reforms being taken forward: Formalising the use of companions as a special measure to help witnesses give their best evidence, and clarifying when the court can exclude intimidating individuals from the public gallery. Reforms will also clarify courtroom screens’ role in shielding witnesses from view of the defendant when they give evidence, allow victims to use special measures when reading their Victim Personal Statement, and enshrine in law the court’s power to edit pre-recorded evidence so it is suitable for use in proceedings.
'Government pledges to ramp up facial recognition and biometrics'
Police will be better equipped to track down dangerous criminals as the government launches a consultation on how forces should use facial recognition and biometrics, in what could be ‘the biggest breakthrough since DNA matching’. Facial recognition is used to locate wanted suspects in public places, find vulnerable missing people and identify offenders more quickly through footage obtained from CCTV and doorbell cameras. In the last two years, the Metropolitan Police made 1,300 arrests using facial recognition including rapists, domestic abusers and violent criminals and found more than 100 registered sex offenders breaching their license conditions.
The consultation will pave the way for new laws so all police forces can use this new technology with greater confidence and more often... The ten-week consultation will encourage an open discussion among the public, Parliament and police, looking at the benefits of facial recognition and asking what safeguards are needed to ensure they are confident in its use, and in similar technologies which are likely to follow. It will explore when and how the technologies should be used, how to protect people’s privacy, and whether using these technologies is proportionate to the level of harm being addressed. It also proposes creating a single body to oversee and regulate police use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies, and seeks views on what responsibilities it should have.
'Major new act to disrupt smuggling gangs'
Powerful new laws will bolster Immigration Enforcement, police and National Crime Agency operations to catch and arrest criminal smuggling gangs abusing Britain’s borders by fuelling illegal migration. The new legislation, which received Royal Assent today, includes a raft of measures which take inspiration from counter-terror laws to allow law enforcement to intercept smuggling gangs’ criminal activity earlier on in the investigations processes – for example downloading a route map to use for a small boat crossing – enabling them to act before migrants are brought illegally to this country...
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act bring forward a raft of new powers, with key measures including:
- powers for Immigration Enforcement, the National Crime Agency and police to gather intelligence from illegal migrants’ mobile phones to track down and arrest people smugglers – as well as on arrival at the border, phones can be seized during property, vehicle or premises searches during enforcement raids, officers will no longer need to arrest someone
- making it a criminal offence to supply, offer to supply or handle articles such as small boat parts, for example engines, air valves, and inflation pumps – offenders risk up to 14 years in prison
- making it a criminal offence to download, research or make a record of information linked to people smuggling, such as departure dates, timings and locations of small boats crossings, research on how to make a small boat or gathering intel on where French police might be stationed at the border – offenders could receive up to 5 years in prison
- making it a criminal offence to import, manufacture or supply compartments that modify a vehicle, like fake floors for a van or a lorry to hide migrants underneath – offenders could receive up to 5 years in prison
- making it a criminal offence to put lives in danger during a small boat crossing through physical aggression or refusing to be rescue attempts – offenders could face up to 6 years in prison
- excluding foreign sex offenders from protections under the Refugee Convention, meaning any conviction of a crime that qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders register will lead to them being denied refugee status
- making it a criminal offence to create or post material online which promotes small boats crossings or services to facilitate illegal migration...
'Winter of Action to crack down on town centre crime'
A nationwide crackdown on crime and anti-social behaviour this winter has been launched as police, councils and businesses united to protect shoppers, retail workers, and Christmas revellers. To keep communities safe over the busy Christmas period, police will use hotspot patrols, quick visible enforcement, and locally tailored approaches, working closely with businesses and community groups to clamp down on shop theft and street crime across hundreds of town centres.
The Winter of Action builds on the Safer Streets Summer initiative, which took place in almost 650 town centres and resulted in over 16,000 arrests and fines, mostly for shop theft and anti-social behaviour. The summer also saw targeted visible patrols up almost 20% compared to the previous year, largely in town centres...
Cases
R v Stuttle [2025] EWCA Crim 256
... The issue that arises in this case concerns disclosure of evidence to the jury after they had retired to consider their verdict...
... During his evidence at trial he was shown the grey hoodie and he said he did not recognise it. The hoodie was in an exhibit bag and was made an exhibit in the case... Following speeches and the summing-up, the jury retired at 12.40pm to consider their verdicts, taking with them the exhibit bag with the grey hoodie. At 14.06 the parties were called into court and were told that the jury had sent a note. The trial judge entered court at 14.19. He read out the note which was in the following terms: "On examination of the hoody, we identified mud marks consistent with falling into mud on the right cuff. Plus, the bag and hoody was previously not turned as the arms were inside out. On our check we found a bank card belonging to Miss Ellie May Faulds that we believe belongs to the partner of the Defendant"...
... In the circumstances of this case, we do consider that the introduction of that material does result in the conviction being unsafe. We reach that conclusion for the following reasons. First, the sole issue in the case was whether the appellant was the driver of the car which was driven dangerously on 1 July 2022. Central to that issue was the fact that the driver was seen to be wearing a grey hoodie. A grey hoodie was found in the vicinity. If there was a bank card in the hoodie which belonged to the appellant's partner, that would be a significant piece of evidence potentially linking the appellant to the hoodie and in turn to the car. The jury obviously considered the evidence important. They believed the name on the card was that of the appellant's partner and they believed that it belonged to her. The evidence that was introduced therefore was significant and important evidence in the context of this case. Secondly, the appellant had no opportunity to deal with that evidence. It emerged after the jury retired...
R v Clements [2024] EWCA Crim 849
... Subsequently the jury purported to return a guilty verdict on count 1, which was sexual assault of a child under section 13, contrary to section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, by a majority stated of 9:2. No verdict was taken on an alternative count of sexual activity with a child, that being represented in count 2 on the indictment. The convictions concerned the same complainant. The jury returned a not guilty verdict in relation to an offence of sexual assault of another complainant under 13, and in accordance with the orthodox practice, they were not asked to indicate voting numbers. The judge gave directions as to sentence. The court clerk then informed the judge that the common platform was rejecting the verdict. The judge then realised what had happened. He provided a written ruling on the verdicts and in relation to retrial, in which he stated that the verdict on count 1 was invalid and granting an application for retrial on count 2...
... as the Registrar has rightly indicated in referring the resultant application for leave to appeal against conviction to the Full Court: "Where a conviction has been recorded the appeal is before the CACD pursuant to s.2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the court could set aside the conviction: O'Donnell (Paul Anthony) [1996] 1 Cr App R 286. I am not aware of any authority that would support the suggestion… of the [judge's] ruling that there is any inherent jurisdiction for the Crown Court to set aside the verdict in these circumstances at least not where an unequivocal verdict has been delivered and the jury has dispersed...
... R v Patten [2019] 1 WLR 5265 is authority for the proposition that a majority direction that is inconsistent with the requirements of section 17(1) of the Juries Act 1974, does not of itself invalidate the verdicts which follow unless the verdict is expressed to be by a majority which is insufficient to meet the requirements of that section, as is the case here. That is any verdict expressed to be by a majority of 9:2 would fall foul of section 17(1). In this case, the appropriate course is to issue a writ of venire de novo annulling the convictions. The application for leave to appeal and any subsequent appeal are unopposed by the prosecution , albeit that they are represented, as is the appellant, in order to express their mortification for having omitted to draw the requirements of section 17(1) to the attention of the judge below...
Other
'Bar leaders’ statement on government’s response to Leveson’s Review of Criminal Courts'
We fundamentally disagree with the government’s plan to restrict the deeply entrenched constitutional principle of a jury trial. The government faces two problems: bearing on the backlog and ensuring we’re never in this position again. We support efforts to do that but have seen no evidence that curtailing jury trials will solve either problem. We do not see how restricting jury trials will have an impact on the existing backlog. The government itself acknowledged on numerous occasions this week that this proposal will not make a difference any time soon. It hinges on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation which has not been piloted or thoroughly modelled...
Criminal trials being decided by a single judge goes further than the recommendation by Sir Brian which recognised the importance of judgement by peers. The Lord Chancellor’s own 2017 report made plain that juries are free from bias and provide diversity. This draconian approach undermines such a well-founded sentiment and attacks a constitutional freedom namely, trial by jury.
'Abolishing trial by jury: why is the government overlooking the obvious?'
Today, the government has confirmed that it intends to remove the right to trial by jury in the vast majority of cases in the Crown Courts. Serious criminal allegations, carrying up to three years in prison, will, under David Lammy’s proposals, no longer be tried by juries, returning verdicts based on their assessments of the facts, having been directed on the law by a judge. Instead, judges alone will decide the law, direct themselves on the law, make their own findings of fact, decide whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty, and then pass sentence. Literally judge, jury and sentencer...
Of some interest is this report, Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings. It was published in 2015 by one Sir Brian Leveson. It contained many recommendations on how to improve court efficiency, a large number of which (as Sir Brian has pointed out) have yet to be implemented. One wonders if revisiting those proposals might have offered a more constructive jumping-off point...