Responding to the King’s speech, Chair of the Bar Kirsty Brimelow KC said:

On the Courts and Tribunals Bill:

“The Bar Council has urged the Government to drop its plans to reduce jury trials and instead introduce specialist sexual offences and domestic abuse courts. Setting up rape courts was in the Labour party manifesto. Removing jury trials was not a pledge.

“Priority listing of cases comprising vulnerable witnesses is an approach that’s already been shown to reduce delays in those cases. There is growing evidence that the Crown Court backlog is being brought down simply by the action of opening up closed court rooms. It is therefore irrefutable that investment, and addressing the inefficiencies plaguing the system, will reduce delays and the backlog of cases, rather than wasting time and resource on an unnecessary changing of the criminal justice system structure.

“If the government doesn’t invest in the lawyers who defend and prosecute cases, we will see them leaving the criminal Bar which will lead to more delays in the system. Delays occur in court when cases are adjourned because of lack of a barrister to prosecute or defend.

“The Bar Council renews its call for investment in the justice system as a vital public service and again underlines the Bar’s steadfast opposition to reducing jury trials and adding to the accelerating backlog in the magistrates’ courts."

On the Immigration and Asylum Bill:

“The Bar Council has serious concerns about the proposal to replace the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) with a new Independent Appeals Body. Our concerns relate to the impact on procedural fairness, access to justice, judicial independence and trust in the justice system.

“We do not support plans to replace existing, trained and qualified judges. There is no substantive evidence that the reforms proposed would be any better at dealing with the current immigration appeal backlogs. We suspect the new reforms, if implemented, will be ineffective and costly.

“We will take a close interest in the proposals to tighten the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for immigration decisions and reform of the modern slavery legislative framework. The Bar Council will consult its newly formed ECHR working group of experts to inform our next steps.”

On the European Partnership Bill:

“The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s plan to reset UK-EU relations. Many of our expert practitioners have been engaged on EU-related matters over many years, amassing insights into Brexit and its aftermath, on the EU side as well as the UK. 

“We have been calling on Government to facilitate the practice of young and future legal practitioners, in whose hands the continuing pre-eminence of the UK’s legal system rests. This class should include members of the Bar, for whom knowledge of EU law, and potentially rights of audience before the EU Courts, will be valuable, especially where UK and EU policy and regulation align.

“The Bar Council supports both the UK’s recent adhesion to the Erasmus+ Programme for 2027-8 and hopes that that adhesion will be confirmed in future years, as well as the Government’s ambition to secure an agreement on an EU-UK Youth Experience Scheme. The Bar Council has called for the eventual agreement to cover young professionals up to the age of 35, and allow them to benefit from work experience, and not merely study, abroad.  

“We have also called for UK legal professionals with more than three years post qualification experience to be empowered to give advice to clients in the EU for remuneration, ideally on a fly in-fly out basis, covering EU and Private International Law, as well as UK and Public International Law. Such advice should attract legal professional privilege recognised throughout the EU.

“We also seek to secure representation rights for UK qualified lawyers with rights of audience before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU and the General Court) in cases arising from EU-UK arrangements which designate those courts as the ultimate arbiter on interpretation of EU law. This would be akin to the representation rights reserved by Article 91 of the Withdrawal Agreement 2019 and follow the same justification.”