Government Introduces Landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill

The Government has introduced its landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill.

The Bill, which had its first reading on Tuesday (25/2/2026), takes its inspiration from Sir Brian Leveson's "once in a generation" review of the criminal courts system in England and Wales.

You can view the Bill as introduced here. Alternatively the Ministry of Justice has produced a factsheet summarising its key clauses.

Below I briefly summarise those directly affecting the work of the Magistrates' Court.

1. Removal of right to elect Crown Court trial:

The opening clause of the Bill seeks to remove the right of a defendant accused of an either way offence to elect a Crown Court trial (trial on indictment).

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court determines whether or not an either way offence is suitable for either trial there (summary trial) or trial on indictment.

If the Magistrates' Court declines jurisdiction, then the matter will proceed to the Crown Court for trial on indictment. Alternatively, if the Magistrates' Court accepts jurisdiction then the defendant has the final choice between summary trial or trial on indictment.

The Bill seeks to remove this final choice. If the Magistrates' Court determines that an offence is suitable for summary trial, then that is how the matter will proceed. The defendant will no longer have the option of electing trial on indictment.

2. Increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court:

As things currently stand the Magistrates' Court can impose a maximum sentence of 12 months in custody for any either way offence.

The Bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2020 so that in future the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations increasing the sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Court up to a maximum of either 18 or 24 months in custody.

3. Removing the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court:

Under current rules anyone convicted of an offence at the Magistrates' Court has an automatic right of appeal against conviction and/or sentence to the Crown Court. The current appeal process, as described in an earlier article, involves a complete rehearing of the case as presented at the Magistrates' Court.

The Bill will amend the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 so that an appeal can only be brought with leave of the Crown Court. Instead of a complete rehearing, an appeal will be a hearing on the issues for which leave to appeal has been granted. A judge of the Crown Court will preside over the appeal hearing and there will no longer be any involvement of Magistrates.

Police Seize Cash from Cross-Border Vegetable Run

Cumbria Police recovered £29,000 in cash from a vehicle travelling south on the M6.

Officers' attention was drawn to the Seat Alhambra as it sped through the county on Wednesday, 18th February 2026.

As a result of information obtained they caused the vehicle to stop and conducted a search of it.

Inside they discovered £29,000 in cash contained within two plastic bags.

The 37-year-old driver told officers he had travelled to Glasgow the previous day and was on his way home to London.

The nervous-looking driver claimed to have been given the cash at a vegetable shop in Glasgow, but was unable to provide its name or address. He also had no documents confirming the origin of the cash.

Cumbria Police made an application to Carlisle Magistrates' Court for the detention of the cash.

Addressing the court, the investigator said: "I have reasonable grounds to suspect the cash is recoverable property or intended to be used in unlawful conduct."

Magistrates granted the application.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Northamptonshire Huntsman Admits Hounds Hunted Hare

A Northamptonshire huntsman has admitted that the hounds under his control were used to hunt and kill a hare.

Philip Saunders, 45, of Irchester, admitted an offence of non-exempt hunting of a wild mammal with dogs during his trial at Northampton Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 17th February 2026.

This is an offence under section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004. It has a maximum sentence of an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Saunders was on trial with co-accused Rachael Lenton, 42, of Raunds and Pipewell Foot Beagles Limited. Both Lenton and the company were cleared of the offence.

After a bit of last minute horse-trading between the parties, District Judge Amar Mehta was informed that Saunders would like to change his plea to one of guilty.

Neil Sands, prosecuting, said: "It is accepted by Saunders that he was involved in the hunting of a protected animal.

"It is clear that the hounds were in that field and that he said 'get on it, get after it' – they are unambiguous statements. He was ordering the hounds to attack the hare.

"He now accepts that that dogs were under his supervision."

In what can only be described as a non-standard application, Mr Sands requested the destruction of Saunders' hunting horn.

He said: "The Crown seeks forfeiture of the hunting horn. That might seem a petty action but that instrument was used in the demise of the protected animal - a hare.

"The hunting community should understand there are consequences to their actions."

Saunders was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,600 costs and £500 surcharge.

Turning to ancillaries orders, DJ Mehta added: "I order the destruction of the hunting horn involved in this offence.

"Mr Saunders you must surrender it to the police by 5pm on 19th February."

As mentioned in my earlier article, the court has wide ranging powers to order the deprivation of any item used to facilitate the commission of an offence, which would include the hunting horn in this case.

The court can make a deprivation order of its own initiative. It is a power often used to deprive thieves of their tools, but is pretty unusual in circumstances like this.

A few pro-hunting commentators have criticised this order as being a bit on the petty side.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.

Litigious Solicitor Convicted of Stalking Court Observer

A litigious solicitor has been convicted of stalking a court observer.

Andrew Jonathan Milne, 63, denied an offence of stalking but was convicted on Tuesday, 10th February 2026, following a seven day trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court.

Stalking is an offence under section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum sentence of 51 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Over the course of the trial District Judge Lisa Towell heard that the 63-year-old lawyer had developed what can only be described as an unhealthy obsession with blogger and court observer Daniel Cloake.

Mr Cloake, the brains behind investigative court reporting blog Mouse in the Court, was bombarded with "oppressive and unreasonable" correspondence by Milne, some of which included sexual innuendo and threats of litigation.

In addition to sending 120 emails, Milne also visited Mr Cloake's home, sent him a birthday gift and left two voicemail messages.

Mr Cloake responded "thanks" to only one email and ignored the others. He likened Milne's relentless correspondence to a "tidal wave" from which he could not escape, adding that it left him feeling "unnerved, worried and scared".

And given Milne's pedigree, Mr Cloake had good reason to be concerned about his Mantis-like behaviour. Over the years Milne has developed quite a reputation for his thoroughly unscrupulous and unethical dealings with those less legally savvy.

In an earlier blog article Mr Cloake revealed that the Solicitors Regulation Agency had been sniffing around into Milne's affairs, but had been effectively silenced by a deluge of his complaints and threats of litigation.

In a further attempt to deflect the course of justice, during the trial Milne claimed that it was actually Mr Cloake who instigated contact between the pair.

However, that suggestion was firmly rejected by DJ Towell, who said she was "sure [Mr Cloake] did not stalk you, that he did not follow you, that he did not attend your address, that he did not leave you notes".

Announcing her decision, DJ Towell said: "I am sure Mr Cloake was caused alarm and distress by your course of conduct."

Milne, who showed no reaction at the verdict, will be sentenced at Thames Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 10th March 2026.

He will no doubt exhaust every possible avenue of appeal, but as soon as he does the SRA needs to grow a bit of backbone and remove him from the roll.

Creating articles can be thirsty work:

If you have found this article entertaining or informative then you can show your appreciation by buying a coffee.