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
'Lammy unveils Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026'
Legislation to enact the government's proposals to curb the right to trial by jury made its first appearance today. The Courts and Tribunals Bill, introduced by lord chancellor David Lammy MP, is expected to receive intense scrutiny during its passage through parliament which began with the formality of a first reading this afternoon...
Among its provisions:
- Part 1 of the bill, which deals with proceedings in the criminal courts, amends the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to remove the right to elect trial and the Senior Courts Act 1981 to enable cases to be allocated for trial without a jury. Another provision creates a power to order 'certain complex or lengthy cases' to be tried without a jury.
- Part 2 of the bill amends parts of the Children Act 1989 to repeal the presumption that the involvement of each parent in the life of a child will further the child's welfare. It also amends the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to unify the leadership of tribunals under the lady chief justice and allow for the appointment of a deputy head of tribunals justice.
- Part 3 gives the lord chancellor powers to make secondary legislation...
No date has been set for the bill's second reading. However the government says it expects the measure to receive royal assent by the end of this year.
'Highest ever courts funding deal agreed to deliver faster, fairer justice for victims'
Every single Criminal Crown Court in England and Wales will be funded to hear as many cases as possible next year to deliver faster and fairer justice for victims, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today (Tuesday 24 February). The landmark agreement guarantees there will be no limit on the number of days in which Crown Courts can hear cases the next financial year thanks to the highest ever investment for the courts – meaning if the system has the capacity to hear a case, it will go ahead.
This renewed commitment to fully free Judges to hear as many cases as the system can support will mean more victims see justice done – and more offenders face the full force of the law. Alongside this, the magistrates’ courts will be funded to its highest operational capacity. This reflects the Government’s aim to run the criminal courts at maximum capacity and drive down the outstanding backlog. A further £287 million will also be invested into the fabric of the court estate itself –delivering vital repairs and digital upgrades to court buildings up and down the country and bringing the court system into the 21st century. For the first time, the Government and the Judiciary have also agreed firm funding commitments for the next three years simultaneously, giving the justice system the long-term stability it needs to plan ahead and implement the reforms necessary to safeguard the system now and for the future.
'Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system'
Speaking at the Microsoft AI Tour at the Excel Centre in London, David Lammy presented his vision for the future of the court system that will deliver faster and fairer justice for victims by combining investment, reform, and modernisation. The Deputy Prime Minister also set out several key measures that will be taken forward from Part Two of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of Criminal Courts. This included the creation of a National Listing Framework – standardising the process of how it is decided when cases are heard in court to stop there being a variation from court to court. It will help address what many view as a postcode lottery for victims of crime. This will help ensure serious cases, like rape and sexual offences, are treated with the consistency and urgency they deserve.
Alongside this the Government will also support the courts and the judiciary in resolving older cases through “Blitz” courts. This is where courts list similar cases together over a short period of time – concentrating court resources and the expertise required – and helping to ensure any guilty pleas come earlier in the process. It will also make it less likely that court time is wasted when a case cannot proceed at the last minute. Beginning from April 2026, these Blitz courts in London will focus on assaults on emergency workers to progress and clear older cases that have been waiting years for justice...
'Judges bring together criminal justice partners to collaborate on criminal courts improvement'
The Criminal Courts Improvement Group today (Thursday 26 February) brought together more than a hundred professionals from across the criminal justice system to examine the challenges facing the criminal courts and consider the road to recovery... Chaired by the Senior Presiding Judge, Lord Justice Green, the group aims to deliver operational improvements to the criminal courts against a backdrop of rising caseloads. Its members include representatives from the judiciary, legal professions, police, Crown Prosecution Service, probation, HM Courts and Tribunals Service. The group is establishing a new national Crown Court listing practice, which will provide a more consistent and transparent approach to listing criminal cases in England and Wales, with implementation expected this summer...
'High Court dismisses appeal over Qur'an burning acquittal'
The Crown court’s decision to overturn the public order conviction of a man who burned a holy text outside the Turkish embassy contained no logical flaw, appeal judges ruled today. Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi dismissed an appeal by the director of prosecutions against the acquittal. Hamit Coskun had been convicted of religiously aggravated behaviour under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 after he set fire to a copy of the Qur’an while shouting outside the Turkish consulate in London. He was fined £240 plus a £96 victim surcharge...
In today's written judgment the judges noted that the right to freedom of expression 'is not confined to the use of written or spoken words, but extends to “expressive acts”.' They added: ‘The right plainly covers what this respondent did outside the Turkish consulate as well as what he said’... The judgment acknowledged that, although Coskun’s case was not such a case, forms of expression ‘aimed at the destruction of democratic values’ fall outside the scope of the right to free expression and are not protected...
'Jury reforms could price middle-earning defendants out of free legal support'
Justice secretary David Lammy’s proposed reforms to curb jury trials could see defendants facing prison who earn less than £37,500 priced out of free legal support, the government’s equalities statement has revealed. Defendants whose cases are heard in the Crown court are currently eligible for legal aid if their annual salary is below £37,500. However under the Courts and Tribunals Bill more cases will be heard in the magistrates’ court, where defendants are entitled to legal aid only if they earn less than £22,325.
Lammy’s bill would lead to more cases being retained in the magistrates’ court because it removes the right of a defendant charged with a triable either-way offence to opt for a trial in the Crown court. It also removes the requirement for the defendant’s consent if the Crown court remits the case back to the magistrates’ court and increases magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 or 24 months...
'New laws to protect victims of ‘honour’- based abuse'
Victims and survivors of ‘honour’- based abuse will be kept safer through a new legal definition and guidance to help improve how frontline professionals support victims and pursue perpetrators. Recent statistics show that nearly 3,000 ‘honour’- based abuse related offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025. However, due to the hidden nature of ‘honour’- based abuse, this is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg, as it is believed many of these harrowing incidents and crimes go unreported.
A legal definition of ‘honour’- based abuse has been brought into the government’s flagship Crime and Policing Bill. Alongside a power to issue crucial statutory guidance for authorities, the new legal definition will help the police, social workers and other public authorities better support victims, and set clear expectations for professionals with safeguarding responsibilities in the handling of these cases.It will also help stop vital information, which could hold perpetrators to account in a criminal trial, from falling through the cracks...
Cases
DPP v Hamit Coskun [2026] EWHC 427 (Admin)
Hamit Coskun set fire to a copy of the Qu’ran outside the Turkish Consulate in London while shouting negative statements about Islam. He was charged with religiously aggravated disorderly behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court but acquitted on appeal to the Crown Court (Bennathan J and magistrates). The Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) now appeals to this court...
... The question of law posed by the Crown Court is as follows:- On the evidence we received, were we entitled to conclude [1] that the Respondent’s conduct was not “disorderly”, and [2] that it was not “likely” to have caused a person within the hearing and sight of it the necessary “harassment, alarm or distress?”...
... Having considered with care the DPP’s submissions about the Crown Court’s seven reasons, we conclude that these are essentially no more than counter-arguments offering a different perspective, or a different approach to the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not persuaded that the court left any material factor out of account or relied on any immaterial factor. The evaluation of the facts, their relevance, and their weight, was a matter for the Crown Court. We do not consider its reasoning contained any logical flaw of the kind we have referred to. We are satisfied that the conclusions arrived at were rationally open to the court. For these reasons our answer to the question posed in the Case Stated is “yes” and the appeal is dismissed.
R v ABJ [2026] UKSC 8
In broad terms, these appeals concern the compatibility of section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended (“the Terrorism Act”) with the right to freedom of expression protected by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), as given effect in our domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. For the sake of brevity, I shall refer simply to section 12(1A) and article 10. The Court of Appeal certified the following point of law of general public importance as being involved in its decision in each case: “Do the terms of section 12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 represent a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)? In the event that they do, is it possible to read down the terms of the offence to render them compatible?”...
For the foregoing reasons, the contention that section 12(1A) is inherently incompatible with Convention rights, either on the basis that the offence is too vague and uncertain for the interference with freedom of expression to be “prescribed by law”, or on the basis that the ingredients of the offence do not adequately balance the need to combat terrorism against individual rights to freedom of expression, must be rejected. The contention that, in order for a conviction under section 12(1A) to be compatible with Convention rights, it is essential not only that all the ingredients of the offence must be proved, but in addition that a separate assessment must be carried out of whether a conviction would be a proportionate interference with the defendant’s right to freedom of expression, must also be rejected...
... In the circumstances, it follows that the certified question should be answered in the negative, that the appeals should be dismissed, and that the cases should be remitted to the Crown Court.
Other
Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026
The government has introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill to Parliament today (25 February 2026)...
The Bill will:
- Remove the right of defendants to elect for Crown Court trial in triable-either-way cases.
- Replace the automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court in criminal proceedings with a permission stage and replacing the full rehearing in the Crown Court with a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted.
- Introduce powers to extend magistrates’ court sentencing powers up to 18 months’ or 24 months’ maximum imprisonment for single and multiple triable-way offences, maintaining the ability to vary in 6-monthly increments by secondary legislation.
- Introduce a new tier of the existing Crown Court – the Bench Division – to hear triable either-way cases likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less by judge alone.
- Introduce trial by judge alone in the Crown Court for suitably technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases.
- Introduce clearer and more effective statutory thresholds governing the admissibility of certain types of evidence, addressing the risk of myths and misconceptions influencing trials and strengthen and clarify the operation of special measures in court.
- Repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 to prioritise the welfare of the child.
- Reform the office of the Senior President of Tribunals, bringing it into closer alignment with the leadership of the courts under the Lady Chief Justice.
- Amend a provision that attaches the title of Central Criminal Court to any Crown Court sitting in the City of London meaning only the Old Bailey will be known as the Central Criminal Court.
- Make changes to magistrates’ expenses, creating a power to move eligible categories for magistrates’ expenses to secondary legislation.
'United Kingdom: Torture expert calls for judicial reconsideration of IPP sentences and mental health pathways'
The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Jill Edwards, today welcomed renewed proposals for a reconsideration exercise to address the longstanding crisis of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences in England and Wales. Peers in the House of Lords have suggested that current or former justices could lead a structured review of individual cases affecting the nearly 2,500 individuals still incarcerated under abolished IPP terms. “A reconsideration exercise led by experienced judges is a pragmatic compromise that could pave the way toward individualised and just outcomes for those affected,” Edwards said. “Something must be done to prevent the continuation of what has become a never-ending saga of injustice and cruelty. In its original form, the IPP scheme was intended to protect the public, but in practice it has left thousands of individuals detained indefinitely — often far beyond their tariff — without meaningful prospects for release,” she said. IPP sentences were introduced between 2005 and 2012 and abolished in 2012, but this abolition did not apply retrospectively, and many prisoners remain under indeterminate detention...