The New Criminal Courts Listing Practice Direction: A Practitioner's Guide

The new Practice Direction on Listing in the Criminal Courts came into force on 1 October 2026, establishing the National Listing Framework and replacing paragraphs 5.6–5.16 of the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 and inconsistent local listing practices or guidance.

For Crown Court practitioners, the principal changes are a new system of priority tiers, the replacement of familiar terminology such as “floaters” and “backers” with Fixed (1F) and Flexible (2F) dates, and greater responsibility upon the parties to provide accurate information about priority, readiness and trial duration.

This guide is intended as a short reference to the provisions most likely to matter in practice.

Priority: the human impact of delay

The governing principle is the “human impact of delay”: the effect of delay upon participants and the fairness of proceedings.

The court must consider as primary factors:

• seriousness of the offence;
• whether the defendant is in custody;
• whether a victim, witness or defendant is a child, vulnerable or requires accommodations;
• the effect of delay upon safety, wellbeing or recovery;
• the effect of delay upon the quality of evidence; and
• any other circumstance increasing the human impact of delay.

For a child defendant, welfare is a primary consideration.

Secondary considerations include certainty of trial dates, judicial availability and continuity, efficient use of resources, adequate preparation time and, importantly, availability of the instructed advocate and continuity of representation. Where considerations conflict, priority should ordinarily be given to minimising the adverse human or fairness impact of delay.

Practitioner point: when making representations, identify what further delay will actually mean for the defendant, witness, evidence or fairness of the proceedings. Vulnerability, custody or age are relevant because of their consequences, not simply as labels.

Which tier?

The court should allocate a priority tier at or before PTPH. Tiers reflect the likely impact of delay, not simply the seriousness or legal classification of the offence.

Watch the qualifications: sexual offences will ordinarily be Tier 2, but are not automatically so; custody does not itself determine tier; and use of an intermediary does not automatically require Tier 2. Where more than one tier applies, use the highest unless the case falls within Tiers 5–7.

Tier is not immutable. The parties must notify subsequent developments affecting priority, and delay beyond the date contemplated at PTPH is itself an additional priority factor.

Fixed (1F) or Flexible (2F)?

The old vocabulary is gone: “backer”, “floater”, “fixed floater” and “priority floater” must no longer be used.

There are now only two trial listing types:

So far as practicable, a 2F case should receive a particular start date at least two weeks before the listing period. The court may depart from the ordinary tier/listing relationship where the interests of justice require it, including to secure a materially earlier trial.

The simplification of language may be welcome. The various species of “floater” which had evolved over time are replaced by two national descriptions with defined meanings.

But over-listing has not disappeared. More than one case may still be listed against available capacity. In doing so the court must consider the risk and consequences of a case not being reached, inform the parties clearly about the nature of the listing and seek to minimise unnecessary attendance.

What practitioners must do

Three continuing duties are central to the new framework:

1. Identify priority factors early;
2. Give realistic time estimates;
3. Notify material changes promptly.

Time estimates

Estimates must include all time necessary for the trial, including anticipated jury/magistrates’ deliberations and, where applicable, judgments. The court may require separate estimates for examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Estimates must be kept under review and will be reviewed at every pre-trial hearing.

This matters to priority: a trial exceeding five days is a Tier 2 criterion.

Readiness

A trial must not be listed unless it is ready or expected to be ready by the trial date. Certificates of Trial Readiness therefore continue to matter. Outstanding disclosure, expert evidence, intermediary arrangements or another issue threatening effectiveness should be identified rather than left until the trial date.

Run-up to trial

The Case Progression Meeting considers readiness and likely effectiveness and must take account of defence representations. Do not necessarily wait for the Daily List to raise a problem.

When the listing goes wrong

Fixed (1F) trial “at risk”

If a 1F trial becomes at risk of not being reached, the court must consider whether a review hearing is required. A trial date, once fixed, should not be varied without good reason.

Trial not reached

A trial not reached through lack of court time must go before a judge for directions and cannot simply be administratively relisted.

Priority must be reconsidered. In particular, a 2F trial not reached should, so far as practicable, receive a 1F date when relisted.

Counsel unavailable

Availability of the instructed advocate and continuity of representation are relevant listing considerations. However, advocate unavailability will not normally justify moving a fixed trial where suitable alternative representation can reasonably be arranged without unfairness.

If seeking a variation, be ready to address the priority factors and availability of the defendant, witnesses and advocates so that an alternative date can be identified.

Other provisions worth having to hand

Section 28: completed pre-recorded cross-examination must not, of itself, reduce the priority of the trial.

Non-trial hearings: a request must explain the order sought, why a hearing is necessary, attempts to resolve the issue by agreement, why determination out of court is insufficient, and provide estimates for judicial reading and the hearing.

Sentence: where a PSR is required, the ordinary expectation is sentence within 4 weeks for a standard PSR and 6 weeks for other/more extensive reports, unless the interests of justice require longer.

Custody: custody is a primary priority factor but does not automatically determine tier or 1F/2F status. CTLs remain subject to separate requirements and CTL applications must be listed urgently.

Local practice: each Crown Court centre must produce a Court Listing Plan explaining its approach to 1F/2F cases, Case Progression Meetings, local initiatives and contact arrangements. Draft Plans are due within six months of commencement and final Plans within nine months.

The Direction also contains detailed provisions concerning judicial allocation and ticketing which fall outside the scope of this short guide.

Practitioner checklist

At PTPH:

• What tier applies?
• What is the human impact of delay in this case?
• Should the trial be 1F or 2F?
• Is the time estimate realistic?
• Is the case likely to be ready?

Before trial:

• Have priority factors or the estimate changed?
• Is anything threatening readiness?
• Has accumulated delay itself increased priority?
• Have the Advance/Firm Lists been checked?
• Do representations need to be made before the Case Progression Meeting?

If there is a listing problem:

• What is the concrete human/fairness impact?
• Is a 1F trial now at risk?
• If the trial was not reached, has it been put before a judge?
• If an unreached 2F trial is being relisted, should it now be 1F?
• What does the local Court Listing Plan say?