CPS Left Without Counsel After Chambers Confusion
Summary
The Court of Appeal in R v OEM and another [2026] EWCA Crim 411 upheld a defendant's appeal against the Crown Court's refusal to adjourn a serious burglary trial. The CPS was left without counsel after a barrister's communication failure with her former chambers about a brief. Lord Justice Edis said the Crown Court should have been given more detail about CPS efforts to find counsel and found HHJ Grout was wrong to disregard the reasons for prior adjournments.
What changed
In R v OEM and another [2026] EWCA Crim 411, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal against HHJ Grout's refusal to adjourn a serious burglary trial after the CPS was left without counsel. The barrister originally assigned to prosecute had moved chambers but there was a failure in communication: her former chambers believed she had taken the brief with her, while she believed she had left it with them. The result was that during 2025 no one was taking responsibility for finding replacement counsel before the December 2025 trial date. Lord Justice Edis found the Crown Court should have received more detailed written information from the CPS about its efforts to find counsel and the reasons why those efforts failed.
While this decision creates no formal new obligations, it establishes that the CPS should provide written notes to the court setting out what steps were taken and why they failed when seeking adjournments due to counsel unavailability. This is important because the court needs confidence the situation will not be repeated. The Court of Appeal also clarified that prior adjournments should be considered when assessing whether to grant further adjournment requests, distinguishing between prosecution-caused delays and delays caused by other factors such as late defendant objections.
Archived snapshot
Apr 3, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
CPS left without counsel after chambers confusion
2 April 2026 Posted by Nick Hilborne
Burglaries: Trial to go ahead
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was left without counsel for a serious prosecution after a “failure in communication” between a barrister and the chambers she had recently left, appeal judges have heard.
His Honour Judge Grout refused an adjournment as a result, but the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal against his decision.
Lord Justice Edis said he agreed with the defendants that the information supplied by the CPS to the Crown Court about its efforts to find counsel was “wanting”.
Edis LJ, vice-president of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, said the barrister who had previously been identified as prosecuting the case attended the Crown Court remotely to “attempt to assist” the court.
“She explained that she had moved chambers since she had first accepted the brief and that when she moved chambers there had been a failure in communication.
“The result of that was that her previous chambers understood that she had taken the brief with her and would deal with it; she had understood that she had done the opposite and left it with her previous chambers.
“This meant that during 2025 until the problem was appreciated no one was taking responsibility for finding somebody who could prosecute the case. By the time that problem had been appreciated the trial date was imminent and, as we have said, attempts to find counsel failed.”
Edis LJ said the Crown Court “should have been given more detail than it was” by the CPS about efforts to find counsel “and about the reasons why they had failed to bear fruit”.
Counsel who appeared for the CPS at the appeal accepted “that in circumstances of this kind it would indeed be better practice for the Crown Prosecution Service to supply the judge, dealing with this kind of situation, with a written note setting out in short terms what had been done and how it had failed.
“This is not only important for the purposes of understanding the recent history of the case, but it is also important because if the court is to adjourn the case it needs to have some confidence that the position will not simply be repeated come the next trial date.”
The Court of Appeal heard in R v OEM and another [2026] EWCA Crim 411 that the defendants faced a “serious” allegation involving a large number of burglaries.
The trial had been adjourned twice in 2024 – first because of one of the defendants falling ill and then because of uncertainty about the status of the prosecution’s mobile phone evidence after late objections from the defendants – with a new date set for December 2025.
The unavailability of counsel emerged at a pre-trial review on 1 December 2025, followed by unsuccessful efforts to find a replacement and then HHJ Grout’s decision.
Edis LJ said HHJ Grout was wrong to disregard the reasons for the first two adjournments.
“On the contrary, we consider that they were important. If the prosecution was attending for the third time, having failed in some important respect and therefore craving the indulgence of the court by breaking the fixture and refixing it, that would be a matter which would tell against it.
“On the other hand, if the first two adjournments were not the fault of the prosecution and had arisen for other reasons altogether, then they would be in a much stronger position.”
Here, the second adjournment came about because of a “late ambush” by the defendants.
It was also not a case where the defendants had been waiting an excessive period for trial; the alleged criminality occurred in the last quarter of 2023.
“By modern standards unhappily this is not an old case,” Edis LJ said and that was a point of favour of adjournment.
“There was nothing about the interests of these two defendants which was of such weight that it should drive the court to frustrate rather than serve the interests of a fair trial with a just outcome.”
Further, while HHJ Grout addressed the interests of the defendants, victims, witnesses and jurors, he failed to have “specific regard to the public interest”, and it was “important in the public interest that criminality of this kind should find a response in the criminal justice system”.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the case “should continue in the Crown Court, that it should be listed in that court as soon as possible so that a new trial date can be fixed”.
Edis LJ sat with Mrs Justice O’Farrell and His Honour Judge Menary, the Recorder of Liverpool.
Sign up to our free e-newsletter
Leave a Comment
By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.
Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *
Email *
Comment *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Blog
2 April 2026
Mazur: a symptom not a cause?
If Mazur is a symptom, what does it mean for the underlying health of our civil justice system: the ‘finest legal system in the world’?
Read More More Blogs 1 April 2026
Cross-generation collaboration: the key to in-house legal tech adoption
In-house legal function leaders will increasingly have to evolve their thinking on how to manage multigenerational teams containing differing levels of technological expertise.
Read More More Blogs 27 March 2026
AI and law firm risk – the view of professional indemnity insurers
In considering law firm applications for cover, many insurers will expect to see evidence of how firms are adapting to AI and preparing for the future.
Upcoming Webinars
- 09/04/2026 ### Providing for pets in wills
- 14/04/2026 ### The court’s case management powers in practice
15/04/2026
Rights of way- key points for conveyancers
Conferences
- ### Housing Condition Conference 2026
Claims Futures Conference 2026
Related News
Formal warning for High Court judge over judgment delays
Return to normality – Court of Appeal overturns Mazur ruling
Mazur reaction: A victory for all, says CILEX
Lawyers on both sides see trouble ahead for motor finance redress
FCA issues stark warning to law firms over motor finance scheme
Features
Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation
- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making
- ### When the dust doesn’t settle: Enforcement in housing disrepair claims
Associate News
- ### Nearly one in eight employers does not provide sexual harassment training, as key Employment Rights Act deadline arrives
- ### 7 practical tips for planning your digital legacy
- ### HMRC property transaction reaction: “Ominous tone for the housing market”
- ### From helpdesk to Head of Product: Why the best product leaders start by listening
- ### Why transparency is the new currency in personal injury law
- ### Verisk Claims data bites: Personal injury psychological injury trends
- ### Why client onboarding still frustrates both clients and law firms More Stories ## Associates
#### iCOFA #### DG Legal #### R&R Solutions #### Actionstep #### Dye & Durham #### Checkboard #### Financial & Legal #### Finders International #### BigHand #### Valid8 IP #### Verisk #### SearchFlow #### AxiaFunder #### Nexa Law #### Search Acumen #### Express Solicitors #### National Claims #### Sentry Funding #### Clio #### National Accident Helpline #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### Auto Claims Assist #### Landmark Information Group #### Brabners #### Recovery First Limited #### InfoTrack #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### Conscious Solutions #### DR Solicitors #### LEAP Legal Software #### VinciWorks #### Bundledocs #### Legmark #### O'Connors #### Fenchurch Legal #### Document Direct #### OneAdvanced #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### Allianz Legal Protection #### SOS Legal #### Litera #### Temple Legal Protection #### tmGroup #### Lockton Companies LLP #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### LPG #### CEL Solicitors #### ARAG #### Qanooni #### Osprey Approach #### OneSearch Direct #### Linetime #### National Accident Law #### Stridon #### Acquira Professional Services #### Access Legal #### Perfect Portal #### Fraser and Fraser
Sign-up for our e‑newsletter
Get our news roundup every Friday.
Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from EWCA Crim.
The plain-English summary, classification, and "what to do next" steps are AI-generated from the original text. Cite the source document, not the AI analysis.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.