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
'Justice secretary Alex Norris confirms partial U-turn on jury trial reforms'
The government has today confirmed a partial U-turn on its plans to curb jury trials – with lord chancellor Alex Norris deciding to change course after hearing the ‘strength of feeling’ on the controversial reform. Norris’s predecessor David Lammy refused to budge on the most controversial element of the Courts and Tribunals Bill despite overwhelming opposition from the profession and even dozens of Labour MPs. However, Norris announced a partial U-turn today - the first day of the Conservative Party conference...
The planned Crown Court Bench Division, where judges alone would have heard cases likely to attract a prison sentence of up to three years, has been scrapped. However, Norris still intends to remove the defendant's right to elect a jury trial for 'either-way' offences, such as theft and burglary. Complex fraud cases could still be heard by a judge alone - despite warnings from City lawyers that this would create new burdens for courts and judges...
'Justice reforms to be rolled out faster as Justice Secretary sets out changes to Courts Bill'
Plans for some criminal trials to be heard by judge alone will be scrapped, meaning more serious cases will continue to be heard in front of a jury, keeping juries the cornerstone of British justice. This will mean the Justice Secretary can be fully focussed on fast-tracking the broader changes needed to drive down the record number of cases waiting years to be heard – fixing a crisis that is leaving too many victims in limbo before they see their perpetrator in the dock.
Millions will be invested in new technology to modernise the outdated courts and slash inefficiencies, judges will be given the resources they need to hear more cases, and vital structural reforms will deliver a court system fit for the 21st Century. This will give magistrates the power to hand out longer sentences, meaning the courts can deal with cases quicker and get victims justice faster. Technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences will be allowed to be heard by a judge alone, freeing up jurors from the personal and financial burdens created by complex, months-long trials. And courts will have the final say over where cases should be heard, preventing criminals accused of relatively minor crimes trying to game the system by electing a jury trial in an attempt to avoid prison...
'Ex-Barclays traders jailed for rigging interest rates have convictions quashed'
Five more former traders who were jailed for rigging interest rates have had their convictions quashed by the court of appeal in London, after a long battle to clear their names. The court overturned the convictions of Jay Vijay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef, Alex Pabon and Colin Bermingham – all of whom worked at Barclays. Their acquittals on Wednesday came just over a year after the UK supreme court overturned a decade-old ruling against the former UBS and Citigroup trader Tom Hayes. The five former Barclays traders were jailed between 2016 and 2019 on charges of manipulating the euro interbank offered rate (Euribor) or the now-defunct London interbank offered rate (Libor)...
The five former Barclays traders applied to clear their names after Hayes, the first banker jailed for Libor-rigging in 2015, had his name cleared. Carlo Palombo, a former Barclays trader sentenced to four years in prison in 2019 for rigging Euribor, also had his conviction quashed on the same day in July 2025. The supreme court overturned the convictions of Hayes and Palombo after finding faults in the original trials, ruling that had ultimately “deprived” them of a fair trial. They found trial judges had given “inaccurate and unfair” instructions to the juries that found the former traders guilty. The move came after the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which brought the original charges against the men, found their convictions “may be considered unsafe” after the supreme court ruling in the cases of Hayes and Palombo. The SFO did not contest the appeals...
'Warrants used to search Andrew's homes were unlawful, court says'
Thames Valley Police has accepted warrants it used to search Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes at the time of his arrest in February were unlawful, the High Court has been told. Following Thursday's hearing, items seized in the raid continue to be held by the police, with a further hearing to take place in 2027 to decide whether the material can be used as evidence. Meanwhile, the criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor is ongoing. The former prince, who denies any wrongdoing, was arrested by police on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after which he launched a legal challenge over the legality of the search warrants. The force said it accepted that the "initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect" before they searched the properties.
On Thursday at the High Court, judge Mr Justice Hilliard said Mountbatten-Windsor and the police had agreed that the search warrants had been unlawful. However, he added: "The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring the investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation is unlawful." Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the police's bid to retain the evidence, the judge said, and another hearing is expected in 2027...
'Domestic abusers to be marked and tracked in boost to victims’ safety'
Victims and survivors of domestic abuse will be better protected as new measures come into force today (Monday 5 October), which require courts to make a formal record when domestic abuse was a factor in offending. Domestic abuse is already recognised as an aggravating factor in a wide range of offences, such as assault or stalking, but until now there has been no consistent way to record this once an offender is convicted. This makes it harder to identify abusers; manage the risks they pose and identify patterns of repeat offending.
Under the new measures, the courts must now state in open court when an offence involved domestic abuse, creating for the first time a single, clear court record that can be shared across the criminal justice system. This will ensure perpetrators are identified and managed more effectively by enabling more tailored interventions to address abusive behaviour...
'SFO seeks new director - 10 months after Nick Ephgrave's departure'
The search for a new director of the Serious Fraud Office has officially begun. Applications for former director Nick Ephgrave’s replacement opened today, with attorney general Ellie Reeves KC encouraging ‘anyone who feels they have the skills, experience and motivation’ to apply. Ephgrave, the first non-lawyer to become director of the SFO, left in January this year after a surprise announcement that he would be retiring after 38 years of public service. Ephgrave was halfway through his five-year tenure...
The role is being offered as a five-year fixed-term appointment with the possibility of extension for up to another two years. The Attorney General’s Office, which is overseeing the recuritment process, has commissioned executive search specialists Saxton Bampfylde to assist. The closing date for applications is Friday 30 October...
Cases
R v PHN [2026] EWCA Crim 1279
This is an application by the prosecution for leave to appeal against three rulings made in the Crown Court. The appeal is brought under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We give leave. We observe and record the effect of the provisions of section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That provision prevents any publication of any report of these proceedings save for specified basic facts until the conclusion of the trial unless the Court orders that the provisions are not to apply. This anonymised and edited version of the judgment is for immediate publication because it concerns a frequently encountered issue concerning SFR 1 forensic science documents. The prohibition on publication of the full judgment continues in force...
The position with the SFR1 is more complex. The defence lawyers had failed significantly in their duty to the court by failing to say whether or not they were prepared to make the admissions necessary to admit the evidence in the document. This failure occurred despite the extension of the time limit provided by the rules by the judge on 28 November to 5 December 2025. We do not consider that that failure was mitigated in anyway by what was said at that hearing or by the request for photographic images of the shoes. The requirement of the rule as communicated in the rule itself and on the SFR1 itself is perfectly clear. That response is required to trigger the securing by the prosecution of a full expert report which will be served and dealt with in the usual way. The purpose of the streamlined process is to avoid that expensive step in those cases where the SFR1 is not disputed. Accordingly that significant procedural failure placed the defence on the ruling of the Recorder in an advantageous position as against that which would have prevailed had they done their duty. This is an "unsatisfactory" state of affairs as the Recorder said, using a term which understates its significance. The prosecution has cited a good deal of well-known authority for the proposition that a party who wishes to adduce evidence must comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules or may face the exclusion of that evidence. There is however no authority of which we are aware which allows evidence to be admitted as agreed evidence where it is not in fact agreed and the party objecting to it is not prepared to make the necessary admission. We consider that there is force in the Recorder's observation that the ruling made on 28 November noted on the sidebar of the Digital Case System could not convert evidence which was not in fact agreed from evidence which was inadmissible to evidence which was admissible as agreed evidence. It may be, however, that the prosecution approached this difficulty on the wrong basis. Rather than seeking to adduce the evidence of the SFR1 at trial as agreed evidence, they should instead have made an application under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for it to be admitted as hearsay evidence in accordance with the interests of justice. It might be difficult for the defendant to argue that it was not in the interests of justice to admit evidence which he had had every opportunity to challenge but had not done so even despite a case management order of the court. Obviously, any such decision, should it arise in future cases, will have to be taken having regard to the interests of justice, all relevant circumstances of the case and the fairness of the trial. We should not be taken to indicate the likely outcome of such an application in any such case. We simply observe that the making of that application is the right course for a prosecutor who finds themselves in the position occupied by the prosecution in the present case at the trial in February...
International
NI: Good Character References in Criminal Proceedings – Proposals for Reform
The purpose of this consultation is to take views on the use of good character references at sentencing hearings in certain criminal proceedings. When determining a person’s sentence, a court can consider any relevant personal mitigating circumstances relating to the defendant before taking its decision on the appropriate sentence. This may include evidence or information provided to the court about the defendant’s previous good character, which can take the form of references provided by, for example, an employer, family member or community figure. Whilst this information may have the potential to contribute to a reduction in sentence, it is not guaranteed, and any weight attributed to it at sentencing will be dependent on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, including the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.
The use of good character evidence, both during a criminal trial and at sentencing, were issues that the Department had planned to consider as part of its Review of Sentencing Policy, launched on 14 January 2026. However, in response to growing public concern about the appropriateness of good character references at sentencing, particularly for sexual offences, the Minister has asked the DoJ to urgently consider how this matter could be addressed during the current Assembly mandate...