The Issue

The BSB emailed AETOs on the 24th, not long after the spring sit of centralised assessments,* with ‘proposed new wording’ of the five-year rule, after receiving queries from AETOs and students.¹⁵ The BSB stated they were not considering a change to the rule, whilst incorporating a ban on extensions into it. The BSB said they would “discuss” the queries and “clarify the position” with AETOs at the Bar Training Forum on 25th April. It is not known what was discussed at the Bar Training Forum.

There is nothing noted for May 2025.

A student enquired about five-year rule extension to their Inn of Court (4th June)¹⁶, AETO (11th June)¹⁷, and twice to the BSB (11th and 29th June)¹⁸. The student received conflicting responses from their AETO and Inn. The BSB did not respond.

According to an internal CSG email, the ‘proposed new wording’ of the five-year rule was discussed at a meeting with the BSB on 6th June.¹⁹ It is unclear what exactly was discussed.

The student had still not had a response from the BSB to either of their emails. On 3rd July, the student called the BSB Authorisations Team phoneline who were unable to answer whether extensions were possible or provide the relevant rule(s). They said they would instead respond to the student’s emails, which they did, later that day.

The response quoted the five-year rule as published, but did not state extensions were not permitted, or use the ‘proposed new wording’. However, the BSB did say: “Should the abovementioned position change, we will be in further touch. In any event we recommend that you sit any forthcoming exams prior to the expiry of the five-year period.”²⁰

The first Freedom of Information request was made to City St George’s University of London on 26th July.

Information disclosed under the FOI Act suggests the BSB contacted AETOs on 28th July 2025 regarding the five-year rule.²¹ The content of that email is unknown but CSG’s response to it suggests some kind of change to it was under consideration by the BSB and that a decision was pending.²²

It appears the BSB emailed AETOs again on 4th August 2025, two weeks before the September 2020 cohort’s final opportunity to sit centralised assessments* before expiry in September 2025. This email has not been disclosed but other disclosed emails indicate the BSB was considering permitting extensions in “exceptional and limited circumstances” as an “emergency process” which does not allow all students to apply, requesting details of students who have made requests.²³

On the same day, the BSB also contacted select students regarding extensions. The BSB stated they were considering permitting extensions and to proceed, students must consent to data sharing with their AETO, who would likely be required to make an initial assessment.²⁴

The student responded to the BSB raising concerns, including unfairness to other students, and proposed a short-term solution of automatic extension to the end of the calendar year for the September 2020 cohort.²⁵ The BSB went silent and did not address the concerns raised or proposal.

On the 21st the BSB emailed Cardiff University, appearing to reiterate the 4th August 2025 email to AETOs. This email stated the BSB would be contacting students, limited to those who “have already applied for exemptions”, and would be in touch once the BSB had “agreed our longer-term approach”.²⁶

From September 2025 onwards, students from the September 2020 cohort are time-barred from sitting further assessments.

After being chased for a response, the BSB replied to the student on 3rd September, but still did not address the concerns or proposed solution. The email stated the BSB’s position that the five-year rule remains in place was unchanged, and communications to the contrary had not been issued. It went on to say they were finalising the policy and guidance for extension requests, and aimed to issue further guidance soon and respond to applicants “in the very near future so that they can plan their next steps”.²⁷

More silence followed.

On 8th September, CSG responded to the FOI request, partially withholding BSB and internal correspondence using the s.41(1) confidentiality exemption. Internal review was requested on 15th September.

The student had not heard anything from the BSB and complained on 17th October.²⁸

On 23rd October the BSB emailed AETOs with an “update” on the five-year rule, stating the BSB was “continuing to review the position” and would be in contact with next steps.²⁹

The BSB responded to the student’s complaint on 28th October to confirm the Head of Authorisations would “be in contact in due course”.³⁰ The student has not heard from the BSB since, including about the ongoing extension process, as of 29th April 2026.

CSG emailed the student on results day, 31st October with a hypothetical offer to automatically set aside any assessments not passed in summer 2025, should the BSB amend the time limit and permit them to sit further assessments in future. This was allegedly “in recognition of the uncertainty and potential disruption generated by the five-year deadline for completion”.³¹

After consulting the Information Commissioner’s Office, CSG overturned the s.41(1) exemption and disclosed the information requested on 7th November.³²

On 10th November FOI requests were made to Cardiff University, University of Hertfordshire, Manchester Metropolitan University, Nottingham Trent University, Northumbria University, and UWE Bristol.³³

On 9th December, Cardiff University responded to the FOI request disclosing the information requested.³⁴

The same day, Northumbria University responded to the FOI request, withholding BSB correspondence using the s.36(2)(b)(ii) exemption (inhibition of the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation).³⁵

On 15th December, UWE Bristol responded to the FOI request, withholding BSB correspondence using the s.36(2)(b)(i) (inhibition to the provision of advice) and (ii) exemptions.³⁶

On 19th December, Nottingham Trent University responded to the FOI request withholding BSB correspondence using the s.36(2)(b)(ii) exemption, having “consulted with the Bar Standards Board (BSB) in respect of this request”. NTU also withheld the expired student figures using the s.40(2) personal information exemption.³⁷

Two weeks after the winter sits of centralised assessments,* from which the September 2020 cohort were time-barred, CSG sent students an email on 16th December 2025 regarding “an announcement from the Bar Standards Board regarding the time limit”.³⁸

According to that email, the BSB and AETOs would be collaborating on developing a process to enable extensions into early 2026. It said “Individual circumstances are not being considered at this stage. Further information will be provided once the process has been finalised. Students should only contact their AETO if necessary; they will be redirected if they contact the BSB.”

On 12th January, Manchester Metropolitan University responded to the FOI request, withholding BSB correspondence using the s.41(1) confidentiality exemption.³⁹

On 14th January, the University of Hertfordshire responded to the FOI request stating the information requested is not held.⁴⁰

The pupillage gateway application window for 2026/27 closed on 22nd January, from which the September 2020 cohort was time-barred.

Internal review of UNN’s FOI response was requested on 23rd January.

Internal reviews of FOI responses were requested from UWE Bristol (12th February), NTU (13th February), and UOH (14th February).

UNN’s internal review was received on 19th February, overturning the s.36(2)(b)(i) exemption in respect of 5 of 6 email threads.⁴¹

On 6th March, the student requested an update from CSG regarding the 16th December 2025 BSB announcement email. CSG responded later that day that “the BSB has still not come to a final decision on this. As soon as we hear anything we will let you know.”⁴²

Internal review of MMU’s FOI response was requested on 9th March.

NTU’s internal review was received on 12th March, partially overturning the s.40(2) exemption for the expired student statistics, upholding the s.36(2)(b)(ii) exemption for BSB correspondence.

UWE’s internal review was received on 12th March, upholding the use of s.36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) in relation to BSB correspondence.

On 20th March, UOH responded stating they held three “generic emails sent to all providers, in relation to the five-year rule” from the BSB to which they had not responded, from April, July, and October 2025. The April and July emails were withheld, citing the s.36(2)(b) exemption, noting: “the BSB have expressed the view that these should be exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 36(2)(b)” and the BSB ” have agreed for us to release one of the three emails”.

The penultimate sit of centralised assessments before the September 2021 cohort’s expiry in September 2026. Another sit from which the September 2020 cohort remains time-barred.

The BSB CEB Chair’s Report confirmed BPTC students (enrolled pre-September 2020) sat the centralised assessments in December 2025, and noted the decline in their prevalence.⁴³

As of 28th April 2026, there has been no further news on extensions for the September 2020 cohort (or later cohorts) since the 16th December 2025 email from CSG regarding a “BSB announcement”, which was of course, restricted to CSG students and not verified. It is not known whether other AETOs made similar communications to their students.

No announcement has come directly from the BSB, either publicly or to all relevant students.

Unlike other time limits in the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy, which can be found in relevant training component sections respectively,⁴⁷ the five-year rule is located after all three training component sections in the final section on general assessment requirements⁴⁸.

Unlike comparable time limits, the five-year rule is not prominent or distinguished from the surrounding information. It is more difficult to locate and not obviously the authoritative source of a mandatory completion requirement.

No justification is published for the five-year rule, unlike similar time limits. However, the BSB’s April 2025 ‘proposed new wording’ of the five-year rule states the “maximum time limit exists to avoid graduates proceeding to pupillage with ‘stale knowledge’”.⁴⁹

The BSB has neither published the ban, nor directly communicated it to students. Instead, it has been communicated indirectly via AETOs.

The Bar Qualification Manual establishes an expectation of publication: the vocational component “must adhere to the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy and any additional guidance published by us as part of the Bar Qualification Manual.”⁵⁰

Individuals impacted by the ban have a correlative right to know what it is.

Incorporation of the five-year rule and ban into academic assessment regulations is not sufficient, consistent, or a substitute. Additionally, if the ban does not have legal effect, such incorporation by AETOs may even restrict or mislead students as to their rights.

Information disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act suggests confusion and uncertainty has arisen across and within AETOs regarding the five-year rule’s interpretation, and application, including whether it applies to BPTC students i.e. enrolled pre-September 2020.⁵¹

City St George’s’ Course Handbook for 2024/25 states “Exceptionally, and where you have limited volume of credit to complete, you may request an extension to your maximum period of registration to the BSB. This is at the BSB’s discretion.” whilst internal communications reveal various conflicting interpretations.⁵²

The uncertainty has even extended to academic qualifications, with Cardiff University internally questioning whether expired students may still sit BSB assessments for the purposes of academic qualifications alone.⁵³

Worryingly, this confusion does not seem isolated to AETOs, with at least one Inn of Court giving the impression extensions may at least be possible.⁵⁴ Additionally, it appears student members who have reached expiry have not been removed as members of their Inns as expected. It is unclear whether such students’ conduct is still subject to Inn regulation.

Students have no way of verifying the accuracy, lawfulness, or even the existence of a ban which restricts their right to apply for exemption and impacts eligibility for Call to the Bar. It makes it impossible for students to know for certain whether, in their individual circumstances, it is being applied properly, and to seek redress, if not. Additionally, it hinders the ability to make informed choices.

Past and current students may have made decisions relying on the absence of a published ban, in addition to the availability of completion time limit extensions for previous cohorts and other training time limit extensions.

Prospective students will not know about the ban before committing to the vocational component. The public will not know about the ban whatsoever.

Similarly, it is impossible to know whether or how the ban has changed as it cannot be tracked.

This is a significant barrier to transparency and accountability, making it extremely difficult to challenge or seek redress in respect of the five-year rule. It also conflicts with the rule of law, specifically the need for qualification requirements to be stable, certain, predictable, and accessible, so that people can understand them and act accordingly.

As the BSB has not published the ban or communicated it directly to students, its existence and precise wording are unverified.

It is assumed the ban’s wording is as written in the BSB’s ‘proposed new wording’ of the five-year rule sent to AETOs in April 2025:

This period cannot be extended under any circumstances (for example candidates cannot apply for waivers or extenuating circumstances to extend the five-year period).⁵⁵

Until now, only AETOs had access to first-hand BSB communication of the ban.

The unpublished ban contradicts:

• The BSB Handbook exemption rules, which give the BSB the discretionary power to grant exemption from all, or any part of, the vocational component requirements.⁵⁶

• The Bar Qualification Manual’s only restriction on the exemption rules’ application to the vocational component is a prohibition on partial waivers for prior learning or experience.⁵⁷

• The five-year rule, as published in the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy, which does not include any provision prohibiting its extension (including via the Part 4 exemption provisions).

• The availability of discretionary extensions for all other Bar training time limits, in addition to the ongoing availability of (repeat) discretionary extensions to complete vocational training for students enrolled before September 2020.

The ban not only contradicts, but substantively changes the operation and meaning of the five-year rule and exemption rules, excluding the five-year rule from exemption i.e. extension.

The ban is a blanket policy which renders the five-year rule the only Bar training limit which is absolute without any exception whatsoever. It does not allow for the exercise of any discretion or to consider individual cases on their merits. There is not even an exception for disability or extenuating circumstances, despite the first cohort subject to it being the hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the relaxation of the completion time limit and ongoing availability of extensions for previous cohorts.

The five-year rule directly and explicitly determines call to the Bar eligibility. The ban renders the five-year limit absolute without exception, allegedly to avoid graduates proceeding to pupillage with ‘stale’ knowledge.⁵⁸ It is not specified whether this means academic or vocational component knowledge, or both.

However,

There is question over the ban’s legal effect and lawfulness.

Coincidentally, at some point, students enrolled before September 2020 allegedly “started threatening legal action so [the BSB] opted to grant waivers” in respect of the BPTC completion time limit.⁶³

A lawful policy must:⁶⁴

• not be absolute without exception;
• not contradict published policy (if unpublished); and
• be published* if it will inform discretionary decisions impacting individuals entitled to make representations in respect of such decisions.

*published to the extent that an impacted person knows what they need to in order to make informed and meaningful representations.

The BSB’s Policy Development Framework⁶⁵ states:

We think engagement with people interested in or affected by our policies is vitally important. The Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) requires us to protect and promote both the public interest and the interests of consumers. The LSA also requires us to have regard to the principles that regulation should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent, and targeted only at cases where action is needed.

We always publicise proposed changes to our policy and rules so that everyone can see what we are doing and have an opportunity to contribute to our policy development processes.

After we have engaged with, and consulted with, stakeholders on policy proposals, we make recommendations to our Board. The Board will consider the recommendations in light of our policy objectives and any stakeholder views, and then make the final decision.

If the decision involves making changes to the rules in the BSB Handbook or other important aspects of our regulatory arrangements, we need to apply to our oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board (LSB), for approval.

Qualification regulations are part of the regulatory arrangements and include any rules and regulations, however they may be described, relating to the education and training required to be authorised to practice.⁶⁶ The fact that the five-year rule explicitly and directly determines eligibility for call to the Bar suggests it is part of the regulatory arrangements as opposed to a mere operational requirement. Additionally, the ban restricts students’ right to apply for exemption from any of the vocational component requirements by prohibiting exemption from the five-year rule.

An alteration, including an addition to, or revocation of any part of the qualification regulations, does not have lawful effect unless it is approved i.e. approved or directed to be treated as exempt by the Legal Services Board, made in compliance with a s.32 direction, or by virtue of other provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007.⁶⁷

Legal Services Board statutory guidance states:

Ordinarily, changes to guidance or policy documents that do not impose mandatory requirements will not be considered to be regulatory arrangements and therefore will not require LSB approval. However, there may be circumstances where guidance or policy documents are so central to the proposals that they fall within the meaning of an alteration or alterations to regulatory arrangements requiring LSB approval. The focus ought to be on content and intent, rather than what a particular document might be labelled as.⁶⁸

An alteration may not be appropriate for exemption if for example it involves more than a very minor change to the regulatory arrangements or raises issues that are potentially prejudicial to the regulatory objectives.⁶⁹

There are no exemption directions which indicate alterations which substantively change the operation and/or meaning of the five-year rule or exemption rules are exempt from requiring approval (including General Exemption Directions 1⁷⁰ and 181⁷¹). Nor does there appear to be a decision notice approving the ban.

We are committed to ensuring that access to training for the Bar is open to all on an equal basis. One of our stated aims is “Improving accessibility – so that the best candidates are able to train as barristers and that the Bar as a whole better reflects the communities it serves”.

Para. 27

To ensure that access to training for the Bar is open to all on an equal basis (while protecting high standards), we will comply with the LSB statutory guidance which states – “Regulators place no inappropriate direct or indirect restrictions on the numbers entering the profession”

Para. 27.1

The proportion of disabled students on the vocational component has remained at around 10% since the 2015/16 academic year⁷³, compared to approximately 25% of the general working age population.⁷⁴

Disabled students are slightly less likely to complete the vocational component compared to non-disabled students (when controlling for the classification of their first degree).⁷⁵

Following on from disabled students being less likely to complete, it would be expected that disabled students would be overrepresented amongst expired students. However, this data is unavailable.

Information obtained from AETOs suggests this could be the case, but is inconclusive. This is addressed later on in the next section: ‘incorrect report and unavailable data’.

There is no explanation for this conclusion even though the report explicitly states students have five years from enrolment to complete.⁷⁶ There has been no update as of 28th April 2026. The next September cohort reaches expiry in September 2026.

The report is based on the data available up to August 2025⁷⁷ which was the last point at which September 2020 cohort could sit assessments and for which the results came out in October 2025. Student results have since come out for the December 2025 centralised assessments and the April 2026 sit has just taken place.

The report omits the October 2025 data including completion data for the September 2020 cohort. The prevalence of expired students is unknown, as is the ban’s impact on the first cohort subject to it, including whether there is any disproportionate impact on disabled students. This data is still unpublished as of 28th April 2026.

For example: very low numbers, figures given as ranges, AETOs not subject to the Act are excluded (ICCA, BPP, ULaw).

Additionally, the University of Hertfordshire did not have a September 2020 cohort. The request to City St George’s University of London was made in July 2025 therefore asked for figures for students yet to complete, not expired. Anecdotally, there are at least two known expired CSG students.

Of the six AETOs with a September 2020 cohort subject to the FOI Act:

• Northumbria University is the only one without any expired students.
• Nottingham Trent University is the only one with at least one expired student but none disabled. NTU is the only AETO to permit unlimited resits but it is not possible to conclude whether this is the reason.
• None has more than 8 expired students in total.
• None has more than 4 disabled expired students. Unless we assume all CSG students who were at risk of reaching expiry did so i.e. 5 or fewer, in which case, none has more than 5.

Most figures were provided as ranges. Even if assuming very generously i.e. the maximum possible number of non-disabled students and minimum possible number of disabled students, the figures suggest disabled students may be overrepresented among expired students compared to prevalence on the course.

For example, if we assume:

• 23 total non-disabled students (7 CSG, 4 CU, 3 MMU, 4 NTU, 5 UWE).
• 4 total disabled students (1 CSG, 1 CU, 1 MMU, 0 NTU, 1 UWE).

This would total 27 expired students, 15% of whom are disabled.

The percentage is likely higher than 15% given it was calculated based on the maximum and minimum possible numbers of non-disabled and disabled students respectively.

However, it is important to remember that is not conclusive due to the limitations of the data.

Significant confusion and uncertainty has arisen from the published five-year rule and unpublished ban on extensions to it. It is clear that there have been various interpretations and understandings of the five-year rule across and within institutions.⁷⁹

For example, there has been uncertainty over the impact on sitting assessments for the purpose of academic awards⁸⁰, incorrect interpretations⁸¹, suggestion extension is possible⁸², and confusion over whether the five-year rule applies to students enrolled before September 2020⁸³. Perhaps most concerning of all, is the BSB Authorisations Team phone call on 3rd July 2025 in which the BSB was unable to answer whether extensions were possible, or provide the relevant rule(s).

To make matters worse, the BSB has repeatedly moved the goalposts.

The ban remaining unpublished is a significant barrier to transparency and accountability. As is the prevention of its disclosure in response to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests. Its publication is critical, whether or not the BSB retracts it, so that individuals who have already been impacted by it are able to access it.

Similarly, the various developments in respect of the five-year rule should be made public for the purposes of transparency and accountability. Not least because the BSB has communicated some of these developments to certain students, left them in the dark, and has resorted back to using AETOs as middle-men.

The need for transparency and accountability is heightened by the significant delay and protractedness in enabling extension applications. It is unjustifiable given a parallel mechanism obviously exists for students enrolled before September 2020.

Impacted students cannot seek redress if they do not have the full picture.

This not only impacts students who reached expiry before completion, but also students who were withdrawn before they could reach expiry. This could be for example, because they reached the maximum number of sits at their AETO, or voluntarily withdrew.

Students may have made decisions which they would have made differently had they been fully informed at the time (i.e. that extensions are/are not possible). For example, decisions to: defer or attempt assessments, take an interruption of studies, enrol in a certain academic year, apply for/accept an Inn scholarship at a certain point.

Past students, withdrawn or expired, have been left in limbo for months. The extension carrot has been dangled since August 2025, and in the meantime, three sits of centralised assessments have passed, (two of which September 2020 students were time-barred from), as well as the application window for the 2026/27 pupillage gateway application cycle.

Even if extensions are eventually permitted, students may already have been removed as members of their Inn of Court and may be required to rejoin (potentially for a fee), as well as to completely redo Qualifying Sessions (costing money and time) or those which have expired.

Additionally, there is no way of knowing whether students would have to pay a fee to apply for either extension to the five years, or exemption from having to redo Qualifying Sessions. The fee for general exemptions and waivers has increased to £610 which would likely be unaffordable for most students, especially at short notice.

Most unfairly, this has been dragged out to the point that students may no longer be able to use their undergraduate law degree (or conversion course) to switch to qualify under another branch of the legal profession. If so, they would likely need to take (or retake) a conversion course costing thousands of pounds as well as time.

Students do not even have a timescale for when they can expect any definitive answers. ‘Early 2026’ has been and gone.⁸⁴

Current students are impacted too, whether or not they are currently close to expiry. It is important to note that the next cohort expires in September 2026. Similarly to past students, current students may have already made decisions which they may have made differently had they been fully informed at the time (i.e. that extensions are/are not possible). For example, decisions to: defer or attempt assessments, take an interruption of studies, enrol in a certain academic year, apply for/accept an Inn scholarship at a certain point.

In the same vein, future decisions are impacted too e.g. to defer/attempt assessments, take an interruption of studies etc.

Current students face similar challenges with being unable to plan ahead as past students, especially those approaching expiry in September 2026. There is just one sit of centralised assessments before then, and a risk that extensions will not be enabled before the next cohort’s expiry.

Prospective students cannot make fully informed decisions before committing to the vocational component, or indeed, before committing to pursuing a career as a barrister. Unlike other branches of the legal profession, this commitment comes earlier, with students having to join an Inn of Court as early as during their undergraduate degree, especially if they apply for and accept an Inn scholarship.

Prospective students currently have no publicly available information before they commit that they are subject to an absolute time limit to complete the vocational component, contrary to the other time limits which allow discretionary extensions. The extension ban’s existence, implications, and absence of any exceptions — even for disability or extenuating circumstances — should be made clear before anyone comes close to committing to a course which, depending on provider, can exceed £20,000. The ongoing availability of extensions for pre-September 2020 students, and their continued registration, makes it imperative to make this distinction patently clear.