header-logo header-logo

14 June 2018
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Bar votes to halt protest action

Close vote to end action reflects ‘frustration, anger & concern’

Criminal barristers have voted by a narrow majority to end their protest action and accept the government’s £15m offer on legal aid investment.

Since 1 April, the Criminal Bar has been refusing to take on new cases under the advocates graduated fee scheme (AGFS) in protest at fee cuts for legal aid work. However, the protest came to an end this week when a poll of 3,038 barristers resulted in 1,566 (51.55%) voting to accept the government’s concession and 1,472 (48.45%) voting against.

Barristers had been poised to escalate their protest by refusing returns—where barristers pass on cases due to a timetable clash—when the Ministry of Justice offered an extra £15m. The offer comprises an extra £8m for fraud, drug and child abuse cases, a one per cent increase in the AGFS from next April (worth about £2.5m) and an extra £4.5m for junior barristers.

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) paused its ‘no returns’ action until its members could consider the offer.

Announcing the results of the vote, Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the CBA, said: ‘We still face exceptional difficulties, as do our solicitor colleagues. This will not fix the terrible conditions, the unhealthy and unreasonably onerous working practices and the general decrepitude.

‘However, if we consider it a start we can build on it. The fact we have achieved this small gain shows that we as a profession are both capable and motivated to unite and unite we will if things do not continue to change in the near future.’

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar, and Richard Atkins QC, Vice-Chair of the Bar, said: ‘The situation in the criminal justice system remains dire.

‘This vote will bring action to an end in the short term, but let there be no doubt that the closeness of the vote reflects the very real frustration, anger and concern for the future across the Criminal Bar. Those voting to accept the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) proposal did not do so because they thought that it was a long term solution, any more than did those who voted to reject it. The changes are just a patch repair.’

Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll