header-logo header-logo

Bar votes to halt protest action

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

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

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