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
'David Lammy considers scrapping jury trials for all but the most serious cases'
Jury trials for all except the most serious crimes such as rape, murder and manslaughter are set to be scrapped in England and Wales under radical proposals drawn up by David Lammy. In proposals that drew a swift backlash from senior lawyers, who said that they would not reduce court backlogs and could “destroy justice as we know it”, the justice secretary has proposed that juries will only pass judgment on public interest offences with possible prison sentences of more than five years. Lone judges would preside over trials of other serious offences meriting sentences of up to five years, he suggested, removing the ancient right of thousands of defendants to be heard before a jury...
The Ministry of Justice said no final decision had been taken by the government, but sources confirmed the proposals had been circulated throughout Whitehall in preparation for an announcement in the new year. Lammy’s proposals, which would create a new tier of court in which most criminal offences would be tried by judges alone, go well beyond the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson, who was commissioned to review the criminal courts and reported in July. And they exceed the courts minister Sarah Sackman’s interview with the Guardian last week, where she set out a plan to stop criminals “gaming the system”...
'Clear evidence required from David Lammy to justify major curb to jury trials'
Lord chancellor David Lammy will have to produce ‘clear evidence’ to justify ending jury trials for all but the most serious cases, the chair of the House of Commons justice select committee has warned. A leaked briefing from Lammy to ministers and civil servants earlier this week revealed that rape, murder, manslaughter and ‘public interest’ cases would be heard by a jury. Defendants charged with offences carrying a sentence of up to five years would be tried by a judge alone, which goes beyond the three years recommended by the Leveson review of criminal court delays. The Ministry of Justice said the government has yet to make a final decision. However, the proposals have already sparked backlash from solicitors and barristers, and prompted an ‘urgent question’ in the Commons chamber yesterday...
Sackman refused to comment on the leaked document and said jury trials would remain ‘a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes’. However, she pointed out that 90% of criminal cases are tried without a jury and civil courts do not have jury trials. The minister suggested any measures to curb jury trials would be revisited once the criminal justice system is in a ‘sustainable position’. The government's response to part one of Leveson's review will be published 'very soon'. The Financial Times reported this morning that the response is expected to follow Leveson's three-year threshold...
'New steering group to implement recommendations of Harman bullying review'
A new steering group to implement the recommendations suggested by Harriet Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the bar has been established by the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board. The joint group will develop a protocol for reporting bullying and harassment for when the commissioner for conduct, a Bar Council officer, is in place. The group will aim to ensure ‘ongoing dialogue and information sharing’ as the recommendations from the former long-serving MP and minister report.
Harman’s review, published in September this year, made 36 recommendations including the appointment of a commissioner and mandatory anti-bullying and anti-harassment standards, as well as the Bar Council talk to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about its ‘explicitly clear’ code of conduct covering bullying and harassment...
'Victims protected through game changing domestic abuse orders'
More than 1,000 victims of domestic abuse have been protected through game-changing domestic abuse protection orders, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice have announced today (25 November). Launched last November as part of the government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in 10 years, and part of the government’s Plan for Change, domestic abuse protection orders offer victims stronger, more flexible protection. Unlike some previous orders, domestic abuse protection orders have no minimum or maximum duration, allowing courts to set conditions that remain in place for as long as necessary to keep victims safe. Ahead of an expected national rollout, domestic abuse protection orders are currently live in Greater Manchester, 3 London boroughs (Croydon, Bromley and Sutton), Cleveland and North Wales. They are also used by the British Transport Police. More than 1,000 have been issued across the UK since their launch in November 2024.
Once issued, the orders mean perpetrators have to comply with a range of restrictions – such as electronic monitoring or ‘tagging’ and attendance on behaviour change programmes. They cover all forms of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and ‘honour’-based abuse. They can be issued by all courts and applied for not only by the police, but also by third parties such as local authorities, charities and social services, or even by victims themselves. Breaching an order is a criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years in prison...
'New National Day for Victims and Survivors of Terrorism'
The nation will come together to honour and remember victims and survivors of terrorism as part of a new national day, with planning underway for an inaugural event on 21 August 2026.This follows campaigning from victims and survivors for better recognition and to raise awareness of the impacts of terrorism. The national day will take place on 21 August and will be held at a different location each year in recognition of the widespread impact of terrorism across the United Kingdom. The date selected aligns with the UN International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism...
Cases
R (on the application of Bernard) v The Crown Court Sitting at Snaresbrook [2025] EWHC 3055 (Admin)
... In my judgment, the judge thus misdirected himself by failing to recognise the requirement not simply to be satisfied as to the existence of a good cause, but also a cause that would be sufficient to necessitate the extension of the CTL in this case. Although a great deal of latitude should be allowed for the experience and understanding that a Crown Court judge will have in matters of this kind, a failure to adopt the approach identified in McAuley can lead to errors in approach, which is, I am satisfied, what led to the misdirection in this case.
In addition, however, there are indications that the judge also allowed his reasoning to be infected by factors that were irrelevant to the test he had to apply. Even setting to one side the suggestion that the defence had a burden to adduce evidence to show that the resource limitations did not amount to a good and sufficient cause, the judge appears to have seen the claimant’s maintenance of his not guilty pleas as relevant context to his decision. In advancing his claim under this head (“irrelevant considerations”), the claimant points to the judge’s earlier peremptory suggestion that he “Be a man. Stand up to what you have done.” That was (to put it neutrally) an unfortunate remark, suggesting that the judge was failing to treat the claimant as innocent until proven guilty, although, if that was an isolated comment with no sign that it had fed into the judge’s reasoning, I would not readily infer that this infected the judge’s ruling. When, however, seen together with the judge’s subsequent observations that “it has not been possible to resolve any issues. The claimant maintains complete denial ...”, I consider the claimant has made good his contention that in this case the judge allowed a wholly irrelevant consideration – the fact that the claimant was pleading not guilty – to infect his determination...
... In the circumstances, I will make an order quashing the decision to extend the CTL in this case...