Kirsty Brimelow KC is Chair of the Bar 2026. Kirsty practises in criminal, international and public law from Doughty Street Chambers, where she is on the management board as head of the criminal law team. Kirsty was appointed Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 2011. Kirsty has the distinction of having led in both Civil and Criminal Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Privy Council, and the European Court of Human Rights.
- Congratulations on taking over as Chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales. As you step into this role, what are your immediate priorities for the English Bar in 2026, particularly at a time when criminal justice systems and public funding are under sustained pressure?
At the beginning of the year, I set out 12 priorities, some continuing the Bar’s long-standing work and others reflecting new and urgent challenges. A major focus is the criminal justice system, which is undeniably in crisis. One of the most pressing issues is the Government’s proposal to reduce jury trials by removing the right to elect trial by jury in cases carrying up to three years’ imprisonment.
I am leading the opposition to that proposal. Jury trials account for only around 1–3% of cases, so they are not the cause of the backlog. My objection is principled jury trials are central to our legal history and public confidence and also pragmatic. If we want to reduce delay now, we need to reopen courts that were closed, lift caps on sitting days, discontinue cases that should no longer be prosecuted, and fix private contracts that delay defendants arriving at court. These measures would have an immediate impact.
2. You mentioned reform, but implementing reform is never straightforward. What challenges do you anticipate in pushing these priorities forward?
The biggest challenge in the criminal justice space is political. The Government is very focused on reducing jury trials, so that debate will be played out on the political stage, which is not easy. We are hopeful that the Government may pause that proposal and allow other reforms to take effect first.
On issues like the age of criminal responsibility, the challenge is cultural as much as legal. England and Wales have grown up relying heavily on criminalisation and incarceration. We need to persuade society that children can lose their liberty on a welfare basis rather than through criminalisation. The real question is whether we want to criminalise our future, or whether we want to divert children away from a life in crime.
3. You are in India for the AI Summit and the launch of the Bar Placement Scheme for Indian lawyers. How do you see initiatives like this reshaping professional exchange between the Indian and UK Bars?
We are very keen to get the placement scheme underway as soon as possible. Exchange learning is incredibly valuable. Indian lawyers will be able to observe court proceedings, engage with barristers, and experience the Inns of Court and training structures.
Equally, English barristers can learn a great deal from India particularly from its constitutional jurisprudence and the way lawyers operate in a large, complex legal system. You always gain perspective when you step outside your own jurisdiction.
4. Since you are here for the AI Summit as well, what stood out to you and where do you see AI fitting into the legal profession?
The summit was extremely impressive probably one of the largest AI gatherings globally. I was particularly struck by its applications in agriculture and healthcare. In law, AI certainly has potential as a tool for improving access to justice, but it also carries real risks.
Also, I do not see AI replacing lawyers. You will always need human judgment to supervise AI outputs. In litigation especially, AI may generate multiple claims without understanding which one is realistically viable. That assessment requires experience and judgment.
5. There is growing concern about incorrect authorities and over-reliance on technology. How should the Bar draw the line between innovation and safeguarding core legal values?
This is exactly why AI cannot be used unchecked. We have already had cases in England and Wales where pleadings relied on authorities that simply did not exist because the lawyer had not verified them. AI can hallucinate, and there is currently no way to eliminate that risk entirely.
The Bar Council has issued guidance making it clear that responsibility lies with the lawyer. Any authority relied upon must be checked against the original source. Frankly, that is what lawyers should always have been doing. AI may assist, but it cannot replace professional responsibility.
6. You have worked extensively on violence against women and girls and previously trained Indian law students and academics. From your experience, what gaps most urgently need reform if law is to prevent, rather than merely respond to, such violence?
Prevention is complex. Some of it lies outside the law, in education, particularly of boys as they grow up. Within the legal system, preventive measures like injunctions can help, but enforcement is critical.
One of the biggest challenges in England and Wales is delay. Sexual offence cases can take years to conclude, often because investigations and charging decisions are slow. That undermines confidence. I have worked on cases where failure to recognise vulnerability had devastating consequences. Proper training of police and institutions to understand coercion, consent, and vulnerability is essential.
7. Your work has taken you to the UK Supreme Court, the Privy Council, and the European Court of Human Rights. How has international human rights practice shaped your understanding of domestic criminal justice reform?
Being part of a regional human rights system allows you to learn from other jurisdictions. Comparative law enriches domestic jurisprudence. Even when foreign judgments are not binding, they can be extremely instructive.
I often refer to judgments from other common law jurisdictions, including India. We all benefit from understanding how others have addressed similar legal problems.
8. You also led negotiations for a historic increase in criminal barristers’ fees in 2022. What lessons does that experience offer Bars worldwide?
It was one of the hardest periods of my career. Asking barristers not to attend court went against every professional instinct. Negotiations were intense, and persuading an exhausted profession to accept a deal was challenging.
But the outcome mattered. The data shows improved retention after the increase in legal aid. There is a direct correlation. If governments want sustainable justice systems, they must invest in publicly funded legal work, particularly at the junior level.
9. Finally, having combined advocacy, judging, mediation, and policy reform, what advice would you give to young lawyers especially women, who want careers that are both rigorous and socially transformative?
Find what truly interests you and what you are passionate about, often that is also what you are best at. Law can be intellectually demanding, but it can also bring real change.
I have seen how advocacy can shift policy and give voice to those who have none. That is what sustains you. My advice is simple: follow your passion, and believe that your work can make a difference.
