*/
The Bar Council has advised against extended court sittings, as a petition rejecting the government’s proposals garners more than 4,200 signatories.
A Protocol on Court Sitting Hours, published by the Bar Council, suggested that courts and tribunals should only sit between 10am and 4.30pm, except in cases of ‘genuine urgency’ or where a judge considers it is in the interests of justice to extend a hearing. Where the latter is the case it said the judge should give all parties at least 24 hours’ notice.
The Bar Council said the protocol was not a direct response to HMCTS’s planned Flexible Operating Hours pilots, but that the proposals ‘run counter to our attempts to improve the retention of women at the Bar’.
It said a ‘tendency has developed to list cases increasingly early or late’ which has ‘widespread implications’ for the ability of barristers to manage their practices, wellbeing and caring or personal commitments.
Under the government’s plan, to be piloted in six court centres, Crown courts would start sitting at 9am, and sit until 6pm instead of finishing at 4pm, civil courts will sit until 7pm and magistrates’ courts until 8.30pm.
An online petition opposing the scheme, started by Morweena Macro, a commercial and Chancery barrister at Five Paper Buildings, has gained more than 4,200 signatures.
An HMCTS spokesman said: ‘We are exploring flexible operating hours in six pilot courts to test how we can improve access to justice for everyone by making the service more convenient for working people.’
The Bar Council has advised against extended court sittings, as a petition rejecting the government’s proposals garners more than 4,200 signatories.
A Protocol on Court Sitting Hours, published by the Bar Council, suggested that courts and tribunals should only sit between 10am and 4.30pm, except in cases of ‘genuine urgency’ or where a judge considers it is in the interests of justice to extend a hearing. Where the latter is the case it said the judge should give all parties at least 24 hours’ notice.
The Bar Council said the protocol was not a direct response to HMCTS’s planned Flexible Operating Hours pilots, but that the proposals ‘run counter to our attempts to improve the retention of women at the Bar’.
It said a ‘tendency has developed to list cases increasingly early or late’ which has ‘widespread implications’ for the ability of barristers to manage their practices, wellbeing and caring or personal commitments.
Under the government’s plan, to be piloted in six court centres, Crown courts would start sitting at 9am, and sit until 6pm instead of finishing at 4pm, civil courts will sit until 7pm and magistrates’ courts until 8.30pm.
An online petition opposing the scheme, started by Morweena Macro, a commercial and Chancery barrister at Five Paper Buildings, has gained more than 4,200 signatures.
An HMCTS spokesman said: ‘We are exploring flexible operating hours in six pilot courts to test how we can improve access to justice for everyone by making the service more convenient for working people.’
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
