Policy paper

Courts and Tribunals Bill: factsheet

Published 25 February 2026

Applies to England and Wales

Background

The criminal courts are not functioning as they should. Despite this Government’s record investment into criminal court capacity, and the Crown Court dealing with a third more trials than compared to pre-Covid, receipts into the Crown Court (cases coming into the system) continue to outstrip disposals (cases concluded). This demand is projected to keep growing due to a combination of:

• More and more work for the criminal courts to process. The number of arrests has risen by 10%, and the number of cases arriving at the Crown Court is up 18%. This is due to police officer recruitment leading to a higher number of charges for criminal offences;
• Criminal cases becoming increasingly complex. For example, while relatively recent forms of evidence (mobile phones, computers and DNA analysis) have improved justice and fairness, they have also increased the time that criminal trials take; and
• A rise in ineffective trials (trials that cannot start or finish on their scheduled date, meaning they have to be rescheduled). There are many reasons for an ineffective trial, including because an interpreter is not available, a defendant has not been produced from prison on time, or an advocate is tied up in an over-running trial.

These factors combined means the Crown Court open caseload has more than doubled since 2019 and as of September 2025 stood at 79,619 open cases. Without action, this is expected to reach 113,000 open cases in March 2029, and 174,000 open cases in March 2035.

This is leading to significant delays for people whose case ends up waiting in the open caseload.

These delays have real consequences for victims. Cases are now open for 80% longer at the Crown Court compared to 2019. As of Q3 2025, 20,155 cases at the Crown Court, and around a third of all sexual offences, have been open for a year or longer. These delays mean that victims, witnesses and defendants can spend years waiting for justice.   

It was against this backdrop that the Government commissioned retired senior judge, Sir Brian Leveson, to carry out an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the Review) to comprehensively re-evaluate the criminal courts in England and Wales, and consider the merits of longer-term structural reform (Part 1), and the efficiency and timeliness of processes in the criminal justice system (Part 2).

In the Review, Sir Brian detailed a profound and escalating crisis in the criminal courts and has made clear that only through a combination of investment, modernisation and reform can the Government meet demand and begin to reduce the backlog.    

The Government has already taken action: we are funding the Crown Court to operate at record levels and, next financial year, there will be no financial limit to the amount of work the Crown Court can take on. But even that is not enough to keep up with projected demand, because there are not unlimited numbers of judges, lawyers and other legal professionals.

Investment alone is not enough: we need reform and modernisation. The Review provided the blueprint for the reforms this Bill contains.

This Bill introduces a series of measures that aim to reduce the Crown Court open caseload, streamline the allocation process to ensure that cases are dealt with in the appropriate jurisdiction, and to reserve jury trials for the most serious cases:

• Remove the defendant’s right to elect: Removing defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way criminal offences. The requirement for a defendant’s consent for the Crown Court to send a case back to the magistrates’ courts will also be removed.
• Reform the appeals process from the magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court: Replacing the automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court in criminal proceedings with a permission stage and replacing the full rehearing in the Crown Court with a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted. To support changes to the appeals process, we are also legislating to introduce audio recording in magistrates’ courts.
• Magistrates’ court sentencing powers (MSPs): Introducing powers to extend MSPs up to 18 months’ or 24 months’ maximum imprisonment for single and multiple triable-way offences, maintaining the ability to vary in 6-monthly increments by secondary legislation.
• Crown Court Bench Division: Introducing a new tier of the existing Crown Court – the Bench Division – to hear triable either-way cases likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less by judge alone.
• Trials by judge alone for technical and lengthy cases: Introducing trial by judge alone in the Crown Court for suitably technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases.

Remove the defendant’s right to elect

Headline: Removing a defendant’s right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences. The requirement for a defendants’ consent for the Crown Court to remit a case back to magistrates’ courts will also be removed.

This measure will streamline the criminal courts allocation process by ensuring that decisions about jurisdiction are made solely by the courts, so cases are heard in the most appropriate venue according to their severity and complexity.

What are we going to do?

There are broadly three categories of criminal offence in England and Wales:

• Summary only: low-level cases which are tried and sentenced in the magistrates’ courts.
• Triable either-way: intermediate cases which can be tried in either the magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court, depending on the seriousness and complexity of the case and whether the defendant elects for a Crown Court trial.
• Indictable only: the most serious cases which are tried and sentenced in the Crown Court.

Currently, section 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides a right for defendants to elect for a Crown Court trial if they are accused of a triable either way offence. Magistrates or District Judges first determine whether a case involving a triable either-way (TEW) offence is suitable to be heard in the magistrates’ courts by assessing whether they can accept jurisdiction of the case. If they conclude they have jurisdiction to deal with the case, the defendant nevertheless has the right to elect to be tried in the Crown Court – and is not required to give any reasons or justification for doing so. 

This measure will remove a defendant’s right to elect for all TEW offences where the magistrates’ court accepts jurisdiction. Removing the ability for a defendant to elect for trial in the Crown Court means that a decision on jurisdiction will be made by the magistrates’ courts.   

This measure will prevent lower-level cases from escalating to the Crown Court unnecessarily and ensure they are dealt with in the most appropriate venue, according to the seriousness of the case. This measure aims to improve timeliness as more cases will be retained in the magistrates’ courts, freeing up Crown Court capacity to hear more serious cases. We are making the choice that it should be a judge that triages where a case should be heard, based on the seriousness of the case, rather than enabling the defendant to insist on their choice. This brings our system in line with Scotland and other countries. It is fairer and will allow a more efficient use of resources.

Judges in the Crown Court are currently able to return a case from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ courts where they determine it to be within magistrates’ courts’ jurisdiction. However, this is subject to a defendant’s consent. Alongside the measure to remove the right to elect for trial in the Crown Court, legislation will also be amended to remove the consent requirement, so Crown Court judges can remit a case to the magistrates’ courts without a defendant’s consent. This amendment will mean that it is solely the courts that determine the appropriate mode of trial 

Removing a defendant’s right to elect will bring the courts more into line with other public services – where it is the experts, in this case the courts, who do that triage, as opposed to the defendant.

How are we going to do it?

Section 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 will be amended to remove the right to elect for Crown Court trial. This section consolidated the various existing provisions for defendants to elect for their case to be tried in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences, without requiring them to give any substantive reason for their election.

Current legislation allows the Crown Court to remit a case back to the magistrates’ courts after it has been sent to the Crown Court for trial. This power, now contained in section 46ZA of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (inserted by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022), replaced earlier provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Bill will amend this so that the court no longer needs the defendant’s consent to remit a case to the magistrates’ courts. 

Reforming the appeals process from the magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court

Headline:  Replacing the automatic right to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court with a permission stage and replacing the full rehearing in the Crown Court with a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted. To support changes to the appeals process, we will also be legislating to introduce audio recording in magistrates’ courts.

This will bring magistrates’ court appeals in line with other criminal appeals processes, saving time in the Crown Court and reducing the impact of appeals on victims and witnesses. 

What are we going to do?

This measure will replace the automatic right to appeal from magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court with a requirement for permission to appeal, and to replace the requirement for a full re-hearing in the Crown Court with a hearing on the issues for which permission to appeal has been granted. These changes will mean that appeals from magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court mirror the process of appeals from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal.

Currently, the automatic right to appeal means that all appeals must proceed to the Crown Court. By introducing a permission stage, a judge will be required to review each appeal to decide whether there are points of law which require an appeal hearing.

The reformed appeals process will apply to all defendant appeals to the Crown Court against a conviction or sentence imposed by the magistrates’ court, including appeals from the youth court, which is a form of magistrates’ court. The requirement of permission will also apply in the limited circumstances where the prosecution can appeal against a sentence or acquittal to the Crown Court.

Currently appeal hearings in the Crown Court are usually heard by a judge sitting with up to four magistrates. Following implementation of this measure, any permission hearing and the full appeal hearing will be heard by a judge sitting alone.

To support changes to the appeals process, we will also be legislating to introduce audio recording in magistrates’ courts for trial and sentencing proceedings. This will ensure that there is an accurate record of proceedings which can be transcribed for the purposes of supporting an appeal, given the move away from a full rehearing of the case at appeal.

Currently, for many cases that are appealed, victims and witnesses are required to go through the ordeal of a second trial even when there is very little prospect of an appeal succeeding. The permission stage aims to filter out appeals which are unlikely to succeed at an earlier stage in the process. Combined with removing the need for a full rehearing in the Crown Court, these reforms will not only increase court efficiency but will reduce the impact of appeals on victims and witnesses. 

Without replacing the automatic right to appeal, there is a risk that volumes of unnecessary appeals to the Crown Court will increase due to the larger volume of cases being heard in magistrates’ courts (as a result of removing the right to elect and increasing magistrates’ court sentencing powers) which would place further burden on victims and witnesses.

How are we going to do it?

We will amend the legislation which governs appeals against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court, currently included in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and Senior Courts Act 1981, to require individuals to seek permission to appeal to the Crown Court, as well as to provide the circumstances in which an appeal will be allowed and the powers of the Crown Court when hearing an appeal.

Section 79 (3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that appeals from the magistrates’ courts to the Crown Court are by way of a full rehearing. The Bill will amend this section so that appeals from the magistrates’ courts as detailed in section 108 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 will no longer be subject to a full rehearing.

Magistrates’ court sentencing powers (MSPs)

Headline: Introducing powers to extend MSPs up to 18 months’ or 24 months’ maximum imprisonment for single and multiple triable-way (TEW) offences, maintaining the ability to vary in 6-monthly increments. This will retain more cases in the magistrates’ courts, freeing up capacity in the Crown Court.

What are we going to do?

Currently, magistrates’ court sentencing powers (MSPs) are limited to 12 months, meaning that magistrates’ courts can impose a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment for relevant offences. The Government can vary MSPs between 6 and 12 months.

Magistrates’ courts allocation guidance (developed by the Justices’ Legal Advisers and Court Officers’ Service) advises that magistrates’ courts should retain cases where the expected sentence could be up to 18 months. If magistrates or District Judges believe a case is likely to receive a sentence greater than that advised in their allocation guidance (currently 18 months), they will send it to the Crown Court.

This measure will introduce the power to extend MSPs up to 18 months’ or 24 months’ maximum imprisonment for single and multiple triable either way offences. 

This measure will not alter the statutory maximum sentence for any offences. Once commenced, it will expand the range of cases magistrates’ courts can hear and sentence. With the increase of MSPs to 18 or 24 months, if, after hearing the case, the magistrates’ court considers that a sentence greater than 18 or 24 months is warranted, they will send it to the Crown Court for sentencing. Increasing MSPs will mean that more cases that would otherwise be sent to the Crown Court can be retained in the magistrates’ courts for hearing and sentencing. The aim is to free up capacity in the Crown Court for more serious and complex cases, helping to address the Crown Court open caseload and support a more proportionate allocation of resources across the criminal courts.

How are we going to do it?

Section 224 of the Sentencing Act 2020 specifies the general limit on a magistrates’ court’s power to impose imprisonment, or detention in a young offender institution, in respect of any one offence. Paragraph 14A of Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 provides a varying power to amend the general limit. 

This Bill will amend paragraph 14A (1) of Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 to enable regulations to be made to increase the general limit on the custodial sentence that a magistrates’ court may impose for a TEW offence. In addition to the existing limits of 6- and 12-months’ imprisonment or detention, the power will introduce new maximum terms of 18 and 24 months.

This enables MSPs to be varied via a negative Statutory Instrument when it is deemed necessary to respond to changing circumstances and manage any unsustainable impacts on the criminal justice system.

Crown Court Bench Division

Headline: Introducing a new tier of the Crown Court – the ‘Bench Division’ – to hear triable either-way cases likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less by judge alone.

What are we going to do?

For criminal cases in England and Wales, defendants have the right to a fair trial. There is no right to a particular mode of trial, including trial by jury.

Currently, almost all Crown Court trials are heard by a judge and jury, from the most serious indictable-only offences (such as murder and rape) to a wide range of triable either-way offences. This measure will establish the Crown Court ‘Bench Division’ as a new tier of the existing Crown Court to hear certain lower-level cases by a single judge. Adjusting the threshold for when a jury trial is required is not unprecedented: previous governments have reclassified offences in ways that altered whether they were tried by a jury.

To ensure that jury trials remain in place for the most serious crimes, the Bench Division will only hear triable either-way (TEW) cases likely to receive a sentence of three years or less (including non-custodial sentences). Indictable-only (IO) offences can never be heard there. Judges will determine eligibility for the Bench Division by assessing the likely sentence of the offences to be tried – usually at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH).

The Bench Division will operate as a tier within the Crown Court. This means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply to the Bench Division. This includes the appeal route from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. In the Bench Division, judges will also retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court – they are not restricted to handing down sentences of three years or less. Unlike juries, judges will provide reasoned judgments for their decisions to convict or acquit.

Trials by judge alone are estimated to require at least 20% less time, as highlighted in Sir Brian Leveson’s report. We are introducing this measure to help reduce the outstanding Crown Court caseload by enabling eligible cases to be heard more efficiently, freeing up capacity for other, more serious cases to be tried by jury.

Trials in the Crown Court caseload that have already begun will continue to be heard by a jury. However, cases that are already in the open caseload, but where trial has not yet begun (and will not begin until after reforms are implemented) may be allocated to the Bench Division.

If the circumstances of a case changes – for example new evidence comes to light which makes an offence more or less serious – the mode of trial can be reassessed. A cased can be moved from the Bench Division to a jury trial, or vice versa. It is up to a judge to decide whether a case should be reallocated, subject to factors such as the impact of delays to trials and disruption to the victims.

Where a jury trial has already begun, the case will continue in front of a jury and cannot be moved to the Bench Division, even if the circumstances of the case change.

There is one scenario in which a case must always be removed from the Bench Division and tried by jury, and that is where an indictable-only offence – such as murder, manslaughter or rape – is added to the case. The most serious crimes will be heard by juries.

How are we going to do it?

The legislation governing judges in the Crown Court is the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Bill will insert new sections 74A-74D into the Senior Courts Act 1981, providing that triable either-way cases likely to receive a sentence of three years or less must be heard by a judge alone

Trials by judge alone for complex and lengthy cases

Headline: Introducing trial by judge alone in the Crown Court for suitably complex and lengthy fraud and other financial cases.

What are we going to do?

This measure will allow certain complex and lengthy fraud and financial offences to be heard by a judge alone in the Crown Court. This is separate from the Crown Court Bench Division. 

Cases can only be heard under this policy if:

• They involve at least one of the fraud or related financial offences set out in the legislative schedule (fraud, bribery, money laundering, insider trading etc.).
• A specific preparatory hearing has been ordered for the case – these can only be ordered in cases of exceptional complexity or length (these types of preparatory hearings are already commonplace in the Crown Court).
• They do not involve indictable-only homicide offences (e.g. murder and manslaughter) or indictable-only sexual offences (e.g. rape and assault by penetration).

If a case meets the above criteria, the court can decide to order a trial by judge-alone, but only where they are satisfied that the case is suitably technical and lengthy and not in the public interest to be heard by a jury trial.

This policy will operate within the existing Crown Court and therefore all Crown Court procedures – including the appeal route to the Court of Appeal – will continue to apply. Unlike juries, judges will provide reasoned judgments for their decisions to convict or acquit.

The aims of this measure are to:

• reduce the time taken to hear these particularly lengthy cases by hearing them judge alone (trials without a jury are estimated to be at least 20% quicker), saving further Crown Court capacity for jury trials; and
• reduce the need for jurors to sit on exceptionally long trials, which arise frequently in technical fraud and financial offence cases and can significantly interfere with their personal and professional lives.

As with the Bench Division, technical and lengthy fraud and financial cases that are already in the Crown Court open caseload can also be allocated to judge-alone trial, but only if the trial has not yet begun (and will not begin until after reforms are implemented).

Judges can make an order under this policy at any time until the start of the trial. Judges must revoke an order if a case suddenly involves an excluded offence or it is now in the public interest for the case to proceed by jury trial. Otherwise, judges can choose whether to revoke the order, considering factors like delay to the trial and disruption to victims.

How are we going to do it?

The Bill will insert new sections 42A, 42B and 42C into the Criminal Justice Act 2003, providing the court with discretion to make an order for an eligible case deemed suitably technical and lengthy to be tried by judge alone, unless it is in the public interest for the case to be heard by a jury.

Alongside the reforms from the Independent Review of Criminal Courts, we are also introducing measures that ensure fairer trials for victims, protect children, modernise operational arrangements and support consistent practice across the courts and tribunals.

Evidence in Sexual Offences Prosecutions  

Headline: Introducing reforms to the law on evidence and procedure, drawing on recommendations from the Law Commission’s report on the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions.

What are we going to do? 

We are bringing forward legislation to prevent the misuse of evidence to unfairly undermine victims at court. 

This includes making changes to clarify the admissibility threshold for evidence relating to victims’ previous allegations, compensation claims, or sexual behaviour. Legislation will also make clear that previous domestic abuse convictions can show propensity for other incidents of domestic abuse offending.  

In addition, we will introduce measures that strengthen and clarify the operation of special measures, making them easier for victims to access and practitioners to navigate.

Background 

In July 2025, the Law Commission published its report on the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions. This report explored ways to improve the understanding of consent and sexual harm, improve treatment of complainants, and ensure that defendants receive a fair trial.  

The report explored how evidential rules and courtroom processes could be refined to reduce the risk of so-called rape myths and misconceptions influencing decisions made at court and improve the clarity and quality of evidence presented. It also considered ways to improve victims’ access to special measures, make this support clearer and update terminology so it better reflects their intended purpose.  

How are we going to do it?  

Previous allegations 

Evidence relating to a victim’s previous allegations of a sexual offence are often admitted with the aim of portraying the victim as a serial liar. The Bill will ensure that applications for such evidence will only be admitted if there is a proper evidential basis for doing so.   

Compensation claims evidence 

To prevent unfair assertions that a victim has reported a crime for financial gain, the Bill will introduce a higher threshold for evidence about a victims’ compensation claim, so that it is only admitted when it has substantial probative value.  

Sexual behaviour evidence (SBE) 

The Bill will simplify the legislative threshold for SBE, making it easier to interpret and to apply consistently, and will require the evidence to have substantial probative value  

The new threshold will apply to trials of any offence type. 

Defendant bad character evidence 

Currently, you can show propensity for a defendant to commit further offences if the previous offences they have committed are of the same category. This can be difficult in the context of domestic abuse offending, as there is not one offence ‘category’ that applies.  

This Bill will clarify that previous offending in the domestic abuse context can demonstrate the propensity to commit offences of this kind, if the defendant is charged with another offence amounting to domestic abuse. 

Use of screens

Section 23 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 currently only refers to shielding the witness from seeing the defendant, creating ambiguity about whether the defendant can still see the witness. The Bill amends section 23 to clarify that courtroom screens shield both the witness and the defendant from each other, to reassure victims and witnesses of their purpose. It also introduces a presumption that the use of screens will be granted where requested for intimidated witnesses giving evidence via live link or pre-recording their cross-examination.  

Witness to be accompanied when giving evidence

The Bill introduces a new statutory special measure to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, enabling a companion to accompany a vulnerable or intimidated witness while they give evidence. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that victims can be accompanied by a professional supporter, such as an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor or Independent Sexual Violence Advisor, unless this would not be in the interests of justice. 

Exclusion of persons from court

The Bill amends section 25 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to address concerns about the interaction between the principle of open justice, and the exclusion of persons from court during the giving of a witness’s evidence. It broadens the list of individuals who may remain in the courtroom when a direction to exclude the public is made, to include accredited journalists, academics conducting approved research and one supporter for the complainant, replacing the current limit of one journalist.

Editing pre-recorded evidence 

The Bill amends section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to make explicit when pre-recorded cross-examination or re-examination recordings can be edited before being used as evidence in court. It confirms that the judge can order all or part of the recording to be removed if including it (or part of it) would not be in the interests of justice. Although courts already have this power under existing rules, clarifying it in legislation removes uncertainty and promotes consistent practice.  

Application of special measures to victim personal statements

The Bill amends section 33 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to clarify that special measures are available when a victim or witness reads an impact statement aloud in court during sentencing. This may include a Victim Personal Statement, for example. 

Decisions about children’s welfare

Headline: Repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989.

Background

The presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989 states that the court is to presume that a child’s welfare will be furthered by a parent being involved in their life, unless the contrary is shown. The presumption only applies to a parent who can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of harm. Even if the presumption does apply to a parent, it can be rebutted if there is evidence to show that parental involvement would not further the child’s welfare.

The 2020 Ministry of Justice report Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Cases (also known as the Harm Panel report) included substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a ‘pro-contact’ culture in the family court and recommended that the Ministry of Justice undertake a review of the presumption of parental involvement (the Review).   

The Ministry of Justice has now published its Review of the courts’ application of the statutory presumption of parental involvement and its three accompanying research reports (which can be found here).  The Review found that the presumption was one of many factors that contributed to a pro-contact culture in the family courts. In particular, it found a high incidence of ordered contact between children and parents who have caused or posed a risk of harm.   

Following this, as part of our wider package of family court reform, the government announced on 22nd October 2025 that we will repeal the presumption from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows (the gov.uk press release can be found here). 

What are we going to do?

The government is repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989.  

Courts will continue to make decisions based on the remaining provisions in that section and in line with ECHR considerations.   

Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 includes the requirement that the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration, In making its decision, the court must have particular regard to the factors set in the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989, such as the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of their age and understanding), the impact on the child of any change in circumstances, and how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs. The court will also consider any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.

The repeal of the presumption forms a key part of broader family court reforms, which include the expansion of the Pathfinder courts dealing with private law applications relating to children. These reforms aim to ensure that decisions about child arrangements keep the child’s welfare at the centre of decision-making and are based on a robust assessment of potential risks, particularly when domestic abuse is present.

How are we going to do it?

This measure will remove the presumption of parental involvement (referred to here as “the presumption”) from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. 

Reform of the office of the Senior President of Tribunals

Headline: Reforming the current office of the Senior President of Tribunals to ensure structural alignment with the courts under a unified leadership model.

What are we going to do?

These proposals will reform the current office of the Senior President of Tribunals, which provides leadership to the tribunals, to bring it within the unified judicial leadership structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales.  These reforms are a key step in the One Judiciary programme, which was set up to achieve the judiciary’s and the Ministry of Justice’s longstanding shared ambition to achieve a single, unified and cohesive judiciary across courts and tribunals in England and Wales.

Under the current statutory setup, there is a duplication of responsibilities for courts and for tribunals in England and Wales; bringing together these systems will support efforts to develop a cohesive and collegiate workplace for the courts and tribunals judiciary.  The new leadership structure will support more flexible working and deployment, wider judicial career options, recruitment and morale, and a more efficient justice system.  It will mean that in England and Wales the Lady Chief Justice will be able to speak for both the courts and the tribunals jurisdictions and for a single judiciary across tribunals and courts. 

The Senior President of Tribunals will continue to exercise his statutory responsibilities for cross-UK tribunals as they operate in other parts of the United Kingdom, outside England and Wales. 

We are introducing statutory reforms to:

• Reconstitute the current  office of the Senior President of Tribunals (SPT) by reallocating leadership functions for TCEA 2007 tribunals in England and Wales to the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ), while enabling the LCJ to delegate tribunal leadership functions to the SPT so that, in England and Wales, the SPT can perform a role equivalent to a Head of Division.
• Maintain the Senior President of Tribunals’ existing responsibilities in respect of tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland which are listed under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007). These will be exercised independently of the England & Wales hierarchy, as now.
• Extend the Lady Chief Justice’s existing leadership responsibilities for the courts judiciary so they also apply to the tribunals judiciary. Such responsibilities include but are not limited to:
  • allocation
  • appointments
  • deployment
  • delegation
  • welfare, training and guidance.
• The objective of these reforms is to create a more cohesive leadership structure to enable cultural change, and unite courts and tribunals judiciary of England & Wales into a single judicial family, in line with the senior judiciary’s One Judiciary strategy. The reforms do not change the current chambers structure or the day-to-day decision-making of the courts and tribunals system.

How are we going to do it?

The office of Senior President of Tribunals was established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Provisions relating to the Senior President of Tribunals are spread across the Senior Courts Act 1981, the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. This measure amends each of these Acts, as well as the Courts Act 2003 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, to facilitate the reforms to the office of Senior President of Tribunals.

Lay justices’ allowances

Headline: moving magistrates’ expense categories into regulations, allowing future changes via secondary legislation.

What are we going to do?

Magistrates are unpaid and are entitled to claim reimbursement for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred while performing their judicial duties. Currently these expenses are set out in legislation (Section 15 of the Courts Act 2003). This legislation sets out that there are three specific categories of reimbursable expenses: travel, subsistence, and financial loss. We are moving the legislative requirement which underpins magistrates’ expenses from primary to secondary legislation, by the introduction of this measure in the Courts Bill.

These administrative reforms will allow greater flexibility to update expenses policies so they reflect modern working patterns and the changing demographic profile of magistrates. It is therefore appropriate that the government makes these changes in the future via secondary legislation.

How are we going to do it?

Section 15 of the Courts Act 2003 will be repealed and replaced by this measure in the Courts Bill which will create a delegated power enabling eligible expense categories to be set out in secondary legislation. The government does not intend to use this power immediately but seeks to create the legislative flexibility to do so following a full consultation in 2026 and consideration of financial implications.

The Central Criminal Court

Headline: Preserving the title and unique status of the Central Criminal Court sitting in the City of London.

What are we going to do?

Currently, legislation provides that when the Crown Court sits within the geographical area of the City of London, it shall be known as the Central Criminal Court. However, this wording risks confusion with the opening of additional courtrooms in the City of London, such as the new law courts in Salisbury Square, in which the Crown Court will also be able to sit.

This measure amends the current statutory provision, clarifying that the Old Bailey will remain the sole Central Criminal Court when the new courtrooms open, and preserves the historic sitting rights of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London wherever the Crown Court sits in the City. This will avoid the potential for confusion in operational processes. 

How are we going to do it?

The measure will amend Section 8(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to clarify the designated premises allocated for the Central Criminal Court. This will be achieved by cross-referencing Section 29 of the Courts Act 1971, which provides for the accommodation of the Central Criminal Court.