header-logo header-logo

13 April 2022
Issue: 7975 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Barristers begin no returns action

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll