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
'Andy Burnham hints at dumping jury trial curbs'
New prime minister Andy Burnham has indicated that he is poised to scrap former lord chancellor David Lammy’s jury trial curbs. Speaking at an event in Sheffield today, Burnham said he wanted to ‘look in detail’ at the proposals but that his instincts were ‘not to reduce access to jury trial’. Lammy’s plans are contained in a courts bill which is set to return to the Commons after the recess...
Burnham said: ‘I have my concerns about the plan to restrict jury trials, partly from my personal experience, particularly Hillsborough. So I want to really look in detail at that proposal and my instincts are that we need to find ways of not reducing access to jury trial. It’s similar to the early release scheme. I want to get inside these issues before I confirm any of the plans that I inherited and, in fact, probably looking for changes.’
'Police misconduct processes to be reviewed'
The Home Office has today launched an end-to-end-review into the police accountability system. Chaired by Dame Lynne Owens and Jason Beer KC, the review will look at how police officers are held to account, identify barriers that can delay outcomes, and consider how the system can be made faster, fairer and more effective. Lengthy investigations can leave victims and their families waiting years for resolution. It can also mean police officers who are found to have done nothing wrong are kept away from front line duties for too long. The review will assess how police misconduct cases are handled across different parts of the misconduct and wider justice system to help create a speedier, simpler and more effective accountability regime...
'Supreme court says Palestine Action co-founder can challenge ban on group'
The co-founder of Palestine Action has won permission to challenge the ban against the group at the UK’s highest court. The direct action group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July last year but its co-founder, Huda Ammori, has been fighting to have the ban overturned amid a mass civil disobedience campaign...
In February, the high court ruled that the ban was disproportionate and unlawful but its decision was overturned by the court of appeal last month. On Thursday, the supreme court said Ammori could appeal against the court of appeal’s decision and that the case would be heard in the final quarter of this year. It means the fate of more than 3,500 people who have been arrested for alleged support of Palestine Action since the ban remains in limbo as their cases are on hold until the legality of proscription has been definitely resolved.
'Shorter prison punishments surged ahead of sentencing change'
Magistrates enthusiastically seized new powers to jail people for longer after being handed the power to do so two years ago. Newly released data from the Ministry of Justice shows that the number of custodial sentences between six and 12 months soared in the year leading up to a new statutory presumption against shorter sentences of immediate imprisonment...
To ease pressure on the Crown court, then lord chancellor Shabana Mahmood announced in October 2024 that magistrates would be allowed to deal with cases that attracted sentences of up to 12 months. Prior to that, magistrates' jailing powers only went up to six months. Yesterday, an official report on the criminal justice system between April 2025 and March 2026 stated that the number of people jailed for between six to 12 months jumped from 1,200 to 3,800. Data tables show a sharp increase after 2024 for custodial sentences between 6 and 12 months. The tables do not state whether the sentence was imposed by a Crown court judge or magistrate. But, for instance, the table shows that the number of immediate custodial sentences of between six and nine months jumped from 3,362 in the year ending March 2024, to 4,019 in the year ending March 2025 and 5,161 in the year ending March 2026. In its main report, the MoJ attributes the increase to the extension of magistrates’ sentencing powers and more offenders being sentenced in the magistrates’ court rather than being committed to the Crown court for sentencing...
Cases
R v Ameer Jamal & Ors [2026] EWCA Crim 951
...The ground of appeal for which the Full Court granted leave was that the route to verdict in respect of unlawful act manslaughter and secondary participation was wrong in law...
... It was pointed out that in R v Grey [2024] EWCA Crim 487, (“Grey”), a case of unlawful act manslaughter, this court stressed the importance of identifying the unlawful act (sometimes called the base offence) and providing the jury with directions as to its constituents, both actus reus and mens rea, which have to be proved by the prosecution. A matter which is now reflected in the current Crown Court Compendium, which states that, “It is vital that a base crime is identified and proved. A failure to do so will result in an unsafe conviction”...
... when the judge came to the liability of the accused for manslaughter, the jury were required to be sure that not only had the accused actively participated in a joint plan to cause some injury to Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin or intentionally assisted or encouraged Raees Jamal in such a plan, but that the death being caused by the Skoda leaving the road was not an overwhelming supervening event... we consider that in the context of this case, where there was no question but that those involved in the plan were intent on inflicting unlawful violence upon Saquib Hussain, these questions appropriately set out the matters which the jury had to consider...
...We would only add, that nothing which we have said in this case is intended in any way to undermine what was said in Grey as to the importance of identifying the base offence in cases of unlawful act manslaughter; a matter which was of particular importance in Grey, where, had that been done, it would have become clear to those involved in the trial that there was insufficient evidence to prove any such offence in that case. In contrast, in the present case, we consider that the base offence was sufficiently identified and that sufficient directions were provided to the jury to enable them to understand and consider the issues which the prosecution were required to prove. Moreover, as we have already noted, the evidence which was available to the jury to prove the case against the appellants was overwhelming...