Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 25 February 2026. The bill’s second reading is scheduled for 10 March 2026.

Among other things, the bill would:

• remove defendant’s rights to ask for trial by jury for mid-level (‘either-way’) offences and allow judge-only trials for some offences
• introduce revised tests for admitting evidence of someone’s previous sexual behaviour or bad character in sexual offences prosecutions
• change the rules around the use of ‘special measures’, which are adjustments to support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give evidence (such as screens and video links)
• remove the presumption of parental involvement in family court cases, meaning cases involving who looks after a child will not automatically presume that contact with both parents is beneficial to the child

Some of these changes were based on or adapted from recommendations in reviews of the criminal and family justice systems.

Immediate reaction to the bill has primarily focused on the jury trial proposals, which have provoked significant opposition from the legal profession, parliamentarians and other stakeholders.

Jury trials and criminal court reform

Clauses 1 to 7 would:

• remove the current right of an adult defendant charged with an either-way offence to elect trial by jury; the court alone could then decide whether such offences should be tried in the magistrates’ court or the Crown court
• allow judge-only trials in the Crown court for either-way offences with a likely custodial (prison) sentence of up to three years (sometimes referred to as a new Crown Court Bench Division or ‘swift courts’, although neither term is used in the bill) and for complex or lengthy trials for offences such as fraud and bribery
• expand the government’s existing power to increase (by regulations) the maximum custodial sentence a magistrates’ court can impose for a single either-way offence (the current maximum is 12 months, the bill would permit this to be increased to 18 or 24 months)
• remove the automatic right for defendants to appeal their conviction or sentence from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court; instead they would have to request permission from the Crown Court to appeal

These provisions are based on recommendations from part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, although there are several material differences. For example, Sir Brian had recommended restricting (rather than removing) the right to elect trial by jury, and keeping the maximum custodial sentence a magistrates’ court can impose for an either-way offence at 12 months (rather than increasing it to 24).

The government says the changes are needed as part of efforts to “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”. It estimates the changes would reduce demand on the Crown court by the equivalent of 27,000 sitting days (PDF).

Reaction

Clauses 1 to 7 have proved extremely controversial. Stakeholders have criticised both the principle of restricting access to trial by jury and the underlying assumptions and modelling that the government has used to justify its introduction.

For example, the Criminal Bar Association says it is “fundamentally opposed to the proposed restrictions on the right to jury trial”, and notes that a survey of criminal barristers showed around 90% were against the proposals.

In December 2025, it was reported that nearly 40 Labour MPs had written to the Prime Minister to say they were “not prepared to support proposals to limit jury trials in England and Wales”. During a debate on jury trials in January 2026, several MPs noted that Labour’s 2024 manifesto did not include any references to jury trials. Backbench Labour MP Karl Turner, a former Shadow Justice Minister, has reportedly been working with the Law Society and Bar Council to develop a “compromise” position involving implementing the proposals on a pilot basis.

Evidence and special measures

Clauses 8 to 11 would make changes to the law on evidence relating to sexual behaviour and bad character:

• Clause 8 would introduce a new framework governing the admissibility of evidence about the previous sexual behaviour of the complainant.
• Clause 9 would introduce new restrictions on the use of evidence that a complainant in a sexual offences trial has previously made a claim for compensation.
• Clause 10 would amend the current framework governing the admissibility of ‘bad character’ evidence relating to the complainant in a criminal prosecution, where that evidence is “previous false complaint evidence”.
• Clause 11 would amend the existing law on defendant bad character evidence so that a defendant’s previous convictions for domestic abuse offending would automatically demonstrate propensity to commit further domestic abuse offences.

Clauses 8 to 10 are based on recommendations made by the Law Commission as part of its review of the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions (with some differences). Clause 11 is not based on a Law Commission recommendation: instead, it appears to be based on proposals submitted to the Law Commission review by the Centre for Women’s Justice (PDF).

Clauses 12 to 16 would make various changes to the current law on ‘special measures’. These are adjustments that can be made to the process of attending court and giving evidence, which aim to support vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The clauses relate to the use of screens, companions for witnesses, exclusion of the public from court, editing of pre-recorded evidence, and victim personal statements. Again, the changes are based on the Law Commission’s recommendations relating to evidence in sexual offences prosecutions (again with some differences).

These clauses have been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. For example, Rape Crisis England and Wales said the changes would “lead to better treatment and protection of survivors of sexual violence and abuse who choose to access the criminal justice system”.

The presumption of parental involvement

Clause 17 would remove the presumption of parental involvement in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, which requires the family courts to presume that the involvement of both parents in the life of the child concerned “will further the child’s welfare”.

This proposal follows concerns that the presumption was contributing to family court failures to protect victims of domestic abuse and enabling perpetrators to use the court process to continue their abuse.

In October 2025, following a review of the presumption of parental involvement, the government announced it would legislate to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. It said this would send “a clear signal that the Government is placing the wellbeing and safety of children at the forefront of decision making”.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner described the commitment to repeal the presumption of parental involvement as “a pivotal moment that will improve how domestic abuse is responded to within the Family Court and ensure children are properly heard, protected and supported”. Women’s Aid also welcomed the decision.

However, Both Parents Matter, a charity that works to ensure children have the opportunity to maintain relationships with both parents, said the presumption should not be repealed as it risked “safe, loving parents [being] cut out of their children’s lives without cause or recourse”.

Tribunals, lay justices’ expenses, and the Old Bailey

The bill also makes changes to the organisation and administration of the justice system.

Clause 18 would unify the leadership of the courts and tribunals in England and Wales, by bringing the office of the Senior President of Tribunals under the leadership of the Lady Chief Justice. The government says this would bring the office into structural alignment with the courts.

Clause 19 would enable secondary legislation to prescribe the types of expenses magistrates can claim. Currently this is set out in primary legislation, which the government believes is too inflexible to keep pace with the changing nature of magistrates’ expenses.

Clause 20 would reserve the title “Central Criminal Court” to the Old Bailey, so that it would not apply to new Crown court premises due to open in the City of London in 2027.

The clauses have not attracted any significant reaction.

Further documents and call for evidence

The government has published supporting documents on the bill, including a factsheet. Information regarding the bill, including its progress through Parliament, the bill (as introduced), and the accompanying explanatory notes can be found on the UK Parliament website.

The Justice Committee is conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the bill. It has launched a call for evidence and submissions can be made via the committee’s website. The deadline is 11 March 2026.