header-logo header-logo

17 June 2022
Issue: 7983 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Barristers could boycott courts

Criminal barristers are voting on whether to drastically escalate their ‘no returns’ protest action by executing court walkouts

Criminal barristers are voting on whether to drastically escalate their ‘no returns’ protest action by executing court walkouts.

The option, which could force the criminal courts to stop proceedings taking place before the end of June, is one of three choices put before practitioners this week in a second Criminal Bar Association (CBA) ballot. The others are refusing to take on any new cases under the advocates graduated fee scheme as well as refusing returns, or ending the protest.

The proposed ‘days of action’ walkouts would escalate, taking place on 27- 28 June in the first week, 4-6 July in the second week, 11-14 July in the third week, 18-22 July in the fourth week and the whole of the week commencing 25 July.

The barristers would refuse to work again for the whole week commencing 1 August, then they would down tools for whole weeks at a time on alternating weeks ‘with no end date… subject to the response from government’.

The ballot will close at midnight on 19 June.

The ’no returns’ protest has been ongoing since April, over low legal aid fees for defence barristers. Last week, the CBA held consultations with members by Zoom to gauge their views. CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC said ‘the overwhelming feedback was… there should be a swift and substantial escalation in the action we are taking’.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has proposed a 15% increase, the minimum recommended by Sir Christopher Bellamy’s criminal legal aid review, to be introduced in October. The CBA say members would not benefit from the increase until at least late 2023. It is asking for a 25% increase and wants the government to ‘at least’ implement the minimum 15% increase with immediate effect.

Sidhu said a quarter of criminal barristers have left their practice in the past five years and 567 trials were postponed last year for want of an available prosecution or defence barrister.

Issue: 7983 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll