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
'Police forces to be slashed in sweeping reforms'
The number of police constabularies in England and Wales is set to be slashed in what is understood to be the largest overhaul of policing in decades. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will reveal plans next week to significantly cut the number of forces from 43. Critics have argued the current model is bureaucratic and wastes too much money - and some inside government believe smaller forces are not equipped to deal with serious crimes...
It is understood the reforms would involve merging back-office functions to free up resources to be invested in more police officers. Ministers will also reveal plans for Local Policing Areas - which allow officers to focus on neighbourhood policing, targeting lower level "local crime" such as shoplifting and anti-social behaviour...
'Police officers to be told they must get work licence or face dismissal'
Every police officer in England and Wales will be required to hold a licence to be able to continue working, the Home Office has said. They will have to prove they have the right skills in issues such as tackling violence against women and girls or face being removed from their job, under the terms of a phased scheme similar to ones for lawyers or doctors. Under separate proposals announced on Friday, ministers will be granted new powers to dismiss chief constables and intervene in forces deemed to be failing...
The plans are part of a raft of reforms expected from Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is promising to oversee the biggest shake-up of policing in decades. Officers will have to renew what the Home Office calls a 'licence to practice' throughout their career by keeping up to date with latest methods and guidance. Training will be rolled out in phases...
'Sentencing Act ensuring punishment cuts crime gets Royal Assent'
Legislation that will keep dangerous criminals locked up, end the cycle of less serious offenders going in and out of prison and end the crisis in our prisons has become law today. The Sentencing Act, which has now received Royal Assent, will grip the prison crisis on the brink of collapse which this government inherited. It will make sure future governments always have the prison places needed to keep people safe, with the most dangerous offenders locked up and tough community restrictions meaning those released from prison enter a period of supervision tailored to their risk and the type of crime they committed. This includes the biggest ever expansion in tagging and the use of restriction zones to better protect victims...
The measures in the Sentencing Act will not take effect immediately, giving the probation service and victims support groups the time needed to prepare for the changes coming in. Implementation will be phased over the next two years, with changes to how long offenders stay in prison when they are recalled expected to begin in the coming months, and the earned release model to be rolled out in the Autumn...
The Sentencing Act follows the Independent Sentencing Review led by David Gauke, published in May. Key reforms in the Act include:
- A new “earned progression model” for prisoners serving standard determinate sentences that will see prisoners who behave badly spend longer behind bars.
- Tougher community punishments such as new powers for judges to bar criminals from pubs, concerts and sports matches, curtailing offenders’ freedoms as punishment, financial penalties that force offenders to pay back for their crimes or unpaid work orders that force offenders to give back to society.
- New “restriction zones” to restrict offenders to a certain area, allowing victims to travel without fear of seeing them.
- A judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing which will allow criminal justice agencies to identify domestic abusers, ensure they are better monitored, and the right measures are in place to protect victims.
'Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims'
Victims going through the Crown Court better supported to recover from crime and get closure with free access to transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks. Announced, Monday 19 January, the change removes barriers to justice and provides transparency for victims to help process what has happened to them and move forward with their lives.
Victims typically have to pay £40 to access sentencing remarks - but it can be hundreds of pounds for some. The change not only makes justice more accessible, but puts it firmly on the victims’ terms if they are not able to attend the sentencing hearing of their perpetrator, which the Government recognises can be a retraumatising experience...
'New King’s Counsel and Honorary King’s Counsel welcomed by Lord Chancellor'
His Majesty The King has approved the appointment of 96 barristers as new King’s Counsel (KC) in England and Wales. The title of KC is awarded to those who have demonstrated particular skill and expertise in the conduct of advocacy. His Majesty has also approved the award of eight new Honorary King’s Counsel (KC Honoris Causa). Their biographies are listed below... The Lord Chancellor will preside over the award ceremony at Westminster Hall in March 2026, he will formally bestow the title of KC upon the successful applicants and award the Honorary KCs.
'Judge-only trials in England and Wales will not wipe out crown court backlog, report says'
David Lammy’s plans to introduce judge-only criminal trials in England and Wales will save less than 2% of time in crown courts, the Institute for Government (IFG) has said. In a report that casts doubt on the ability of the changes, which will slash the number of jury trials to achieve their goal of wiping out the courts’ backlog, the thinktank described the gains from judge-only trials as “marginal”. It said while the number of jury trials would fall by about 50%, there would probably be only a 7 to 10% reduction in total time taken in the courtroom as a result of the entire package of changes, with judge-only trials only contributing to a fraction of that...
The government said it had done its own impact assessment of the changes but would not publish it until the bill containing the proposals was ready. The IFG said that while the proposals would reduce demand on the crown court, in the number of cases and the total amount of time it takes to hear them, the reductions are “not substantial” for three reasons. It said a lot of court time is spent handling other types of cases and hearings and, second, that trials moving to the bench division or magistrates would be the least serious cases in the crown court, which on average only take half as long to hear as the most serious cases. Finally, while judge-only trials are estimated to be 20% quicker than jury trials, they would only account for about a quarter of crown court trials, and have an “extremely marginal” impact, according to the report...
'Former women and equalities minister joins bar as commissioner for conduct'
The Bar Council has appointed its first commissioner for conduct following a recommendation by Baroness Harman (Harriet Harman KC) in her independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment in and around the bar. Dame Maria Miller, chair of domestic abuse charity SafeLives, will begin her role as commissioner for conduct role this month. She will be responsible for promoting a ‘safe, respectful and professional culture at the bar’. Harman’s review, published last September, made 36 recommendations including the appointment of a commissioner to ‘drive cultural and organisational change’.
Miller’s responsibilities include handling bullying, harassment and sexual harassment reports in line with an agreed protocol with the Bar Standards Boards, as well as liaising with the judiciary and Judicial Conduct Investigations Office and providing confidential support. The commissioner role is operationally independent but occupies the same level of seniority as the chair, vice chair and treasurer of the council, as recommended by Harman...
Cases
R v Matthew Haydon [2026] EWCA Crim 12
The appellant, Matthew Haydon was charged on an indictment containing one count of an offence contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883... Ground 1 is that the judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of likely in section 2. Ground 2 is that the judge was wrong to refuse a defence application to exclude certain evidence on the ground that the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed its probative value. Ground 3 is that the judge misdirected the jury on the mental element of the section 2 offence: the argument for the appellant in short is that the mental element of the offence is not foresight of any explosion, but foresight of the nature of (i.e. the extent or size of) the explosion...
... In this context Parliament cannot have been using likely in the sense of more likely than not. The effect of this would be to leave outside of scope cases where the jury is satisfied that the explosion caused by the defendant could well endanger life, or seriously injure property, but that possibility falls short of being more likely than not...
... It follows that an accused person does not have to intend or foresee that the explosion is of a particular nature or magnitude. And it would not matter for the purposes of section 2 if a resulting explosion was of a greater magnitude than happened to have been intended or foreseen. That seems to us to be entirely consistent with the inherent danger and unpredictability of explosives...
R v Rosemary Webster & Ors [2026] EWCA Crim 9
... This ground of appeal is in these terms: The judge misdirected the jury that it would be a criminal offence for them to return a verdict of not guilty according to conscience... The judge, in giving this direction, put improper pressure on the jury to reach a verdict on what they may have thought the judge or others might view as the most likely assessment of the evidence rather than their own assessment of the evidence...
... On the first day of the trial, 19 February 2024, posters were found displayed on the street in the vicinity of the court. The posters made reference to the right of jurors to acquit according to conscience. Some stated: “MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC: If you are on a JURY you have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to acquit (not guilty) a Defendant on your CONSCIENCE for any reason you choose” [emphasis as in original]...
... The judge did not say that returning a verdict of not guilty was prohibited conduct, which would have been a misdirection. He correctly said that the offence was committed where a juror does something which might reasonably give rise to a conclusion that the issue will not be tried on the evidence. It cannot relate to the delivery of the verdict because it must relate to how the juror concerned “intends to try the issue”. We do not consider, therefore, that the judge’s direction about the effect of section 20C of the 1974 Act was wrong in law. His directions that the posters and placards “misstated the law” and involved the commission of a criminal offence are more questionable, but were designed to focus the jury’s attention on what they had heard in court, rather than seen in the street...
... In the present case, the judge was dealing with a difficult and dynamic situation in which jurors were required to enter and leave Inner London Crown Court through or past groups of people who were protesting against the prosecution of these appellants. The placards and posters which had inspired this specific direction were obviously designed to persuade the jurors to return a verdict according to their conscience and the judge decided to give a direction to the jury which was no doubt designed to stop them being drawn into any conversation during which they might be tempted to engage in prohibited conduct. We do not accept that this warning resulted in the jury believing that they might be sent to prison if they acquitted the appellants. That is not what the judge said. Warning jurors of the criminal offences they might commit under the 1974 Act by researching the case or disclosing jury deliberations is now standard practice, as shown by the Jury Notice set out above. They are routinely warned that jurors have been sent to prison for such offences in the past. The situation we have just described did create a risk that conversations might take place in which a juror might express agreement with protestors, even if only to get rid of them, and might do so in terms which amounted to prohibited conduct. We take the view that it was a reasonable step for the judge to address that risk in the way that he did...
Other
'How crypto criminals stole $713 million'
There's something uniquely agonising about having your cryptocurrency stolen. All transactions are recorded on a digital ledger, known as a blockchain, so even if someone takes your money and puts it in their own crypto wallet, it is still visible online. "You can see your money there on the public blockchain, but there's nothing you can do to get it back," says Helen, who lost around $315,000 (£250,000) to thieves. She likens it to watching a burglar pile up your prized possessions on the other side of an impassable chasm...