header-logo header-logo

28 January 2026
Issue: 8147 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Can more courts, fewer juries make a difference?

Four Nightingale courts are to be made permanent, as justice ministers continue to grapple with the record-level Crown Court backlog

The buildings, in Fleetwood, Telford, Chichester and Cirencester, comprise 11 courtrooms covering criminal, family and civil cases. Their conversion to a permanent status marks the end of the Nightingale initiative, which converted hotels, offices and conference centres into a total of 60 temporary courtrooms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Law Society president Mark Evans described the move as ‘sensible’, but urged the government to ‘ensure there are enough judges, court staff and lawyers to work on the cases.

‘To bring down the backlogs and ensure truly swift and fair justice, the government must focus on efficiencies and sustained investment across the entire justice system, including reducing the number of cases coming into the courts.’

Ministers have stepped up efforts to bring the backlog of 80,000 cases down, increasing funding for Crown Courts to sit a record 111,250 days this financial year. The Lord Chancellor David Lammy has proposed radical cuts to jury trials, under which slightly less than half of trials currently heard by a jury would instead be heard by magistrates or a judge sitting alone.

Last week, however, the Institute for Government reported that cutting jury trials—a proposal that is widely opposed within the legal profession—would reduce the Crown Court workload by less than 2%. The institute explains one reason for this is juries will continue to be used in the most serious trials, which tend to take the longest to complete.

Hearing more cases in the magistrates’ court, on the other hand, could save 7%-10%—with the caveat that this would depend on a large number of cases being retained in magistrates’ courts, according to the institute’s report, ‘Trial and error? The impact of restricting jury trials on court demand’. 

Issue: 8147 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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