header-logo header-logo

Barristers could boycott courts

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

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