header-logo header-logo

Barristers begin no returns action

13 April 2022
Issue: 7975 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Criminal barristers have ploughed ahead with protest action, after the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to increase fees and hourly rates by 25%

As of this week, they are adopting a policy of ‘no returns’―refusing to provide cover on cases ‘returned’ due to diary clashes―in line with a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) ballot in February in which 94% of members voted to withdraw their goodwill by no longer accepting return work. The CBA says the number of criminal barristers has shrunk by a quarter in the past five years and warns hundreds more criminal barristers will leave the profession because they don’t find the work financially viable.

The MoJ offered a 15% increase in advocacy fees, the minimum recommended by Sir Christopher Bellamy’s Independent Review into Criminal Legal Aid and the rise would not take place until October.

There was a backlog of more than 39,000 Crown Court cases before pandemic restrictions came into force (this has increased to about 60,000). According to the CBA, 280 trials in the last quarter of 2021 were adjourned due to shortages of barristers, and cases now take an average of 700 days to complete.

The CBA says criminal barristers earn a median £12,200 per year after expenses in their first three years, and income after expenses from legal aid fees for all specialist criminal barristers fell by 23% in a single year (2019/20-2020/21) to an average of £47,000 (see here).

CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC said: ‘Criminal barristers can no longer afford to wait and, with every passing week, increasing numbers are leaving our ranks to find alternative work that offers a viable career.

‘Without sufficient prosecutors and defenders, thousands of victims and accused will continue to face years of delay and the backlog in cases will grow ever longer.’

Meanwhile, Bar Council research published this week has uncovered a ten per cent attrition rate at the Criminal Bar during the pandemic (from 2,670 in 2019-20 to 2,400 in 2020-21).

The data, drawn from 3,730 barristers who earned some fee income from publicly funded criminal work in 2020-21, was not considered by Sir Christopher Bellamy’s Independent Review into Criminal Legal Aid (see here).
Issue: 7975 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
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