header-logo header-logo

30 July 2025
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Barristers reject Leveson plans

Criminal barristers have firmly rebuffed Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals to restrict jury trials and move a tranche of cases to a judge sitting with two magistrates

A seven-day snapshot survey commissioned by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and conducted by Professor Katrin Hohl, City of St George’s, University of London, received a weighty response, with 2,029 criminal barristers taking part.

In her Monday Message this week, CBA chair Mary Prior KC said 93% opposed removing the right to appeal a judge’s decision to move a case to the new Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD) rather than offer a jury trial, and 78% opposed judge-only trials for complex and serious fraud.

Some 92% and 91%, respectively, opposed allowing CCBD cases to include sexual offences against children, and sexual offences against adults.

84% opposed the removal of a defendant’s automatic right to appeal against conviction from the magistrates’ court, and 86% were against CCBDs hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including stalking and voyeurism.

Sir Brian’s 388-page Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1, published last month, proposed that defendants facing a maximum sentence of two years or less be able to opt out of jury trials and instead be heard by a judge and two magistrates—a new court division, the CCBD. He suggested defendants lose the right to an automatic right to appeal and that jury trials be dispensed with for serious and complex fraud cases.

Asked for their top two priorities for the justice system, 82% of CBA members said increasing Crown Court sitting days, and 71% said increasing court efficiency by ensuring prisoners reach court in time, Wi-Fi, audio and video equipment works and any interpreters required are present. 27% said Crown Court judges should have a background in criminal law, and 10% voted to fix the leaks, lifts and other building disrepairs.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll