header-logo header-logo

15% legal aid offer is actually 9%

30 March 2022
Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail
The government’s placatory offer of an extra 15% funding―meeting the minimum recommendation of the Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid, led by Sir Christopher Bellamy―appears to have fallen apart under examination

The Law Society said the Justice Secretary’s claim last week to have matched Sir Christopher’s recommendation of at least 15% extra funds for criminal legal aid practitioners was nothing but ‘spin’.

Justice secretary Dominic Raab told the House of Commons on 22 March that ‘we matched the Bellamy recommendations on the quantum of investment and on the… uplift for fees’.

In fact, the Law Society claims, the proposals fall substantially short of what they first appeared to be. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) impact assessment (table 3, p12) shows the total increase for solicitors is 9% (not 15% as promised), a figure confirmed during subsequent meetings between Law Society and ministry officials.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Now we know that, for solicitors, the reality is different. We can no longer support the government’s proposals. The government has botched its response.’

Boyce said, unless the government changes tack, the Law Society no longer believes there is a viable economic future in criminal legal aid.

She appealed to criminal justice practitioners to make their views heard by responding to the MoJ consultation before 7 June. Click here for more information.

Boyce urged the MoJ to amend its proposals immediately to bring the funding for solicitors up to the full 15% to make the system economically viable. She suggested this could be done by: increasing payments for police station and magistrates’ court work still further; increasing the basic fee for Crown Court work; and guaranteeing additional funding on restructuring the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (LGFS).

An MoJ spokesperson said: ‘We have accepted Sir Christopher’s recommendation for an uplift in fees and our proposals will deliver an extra £135m a year in criminal legal aid―the biggest increase in a decade.

‘This is alongside our ambitious proposals to ensure professionals are better paid for the work they carry out, boosting pay for lawyers representing suspects in police stations, magistrates’ court and youth court by 15% and funding the training and accreditation of solicitors and solicitor advocates.’ 

Issue: 7973 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll