header-logo header-logo

Barristers to strike

21 June 2022
Issue: 7984 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Wigs and gowns will form a picket line, bringing the criminal courts to a halt, in a major escalation of the row between criminal barristers and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)

The practitioners will refuse to work on 27 June, the first ‘day of action’, with barristers gathering at 10am with placards outside the Old Bailey in London, and Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and Cardiff Crown Courts. This will be repeated on every Monday when protests are taking place.

The scale of the walkouts will then escalate by an extra day each week until, by late July, full ‘weeks of action’ are taking place on alternative weeks. A total of 2,055 criminal barristers voted in a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) ballot. The results, announced this week, show 81.5% (1,675 barristers) supported days of action, of which 43.5% of the total (894 barristers) chose the most disruptive option (days of action combined with ‘no returns’ and refusing new instructions).

In a message to members, CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC (pictured), and vice-chair, Kirsty Brimelow QC said: ‘Without immediate action to halt the exodus of criminal barristers from our ranks, the record backlog that has crippled our courts will continue to inflict misery upon victims and defendants alike, and the public will be betrayed.’

Criminal barristers have been taking action by ‘refusing returns’ for the past two months, but have not had their demands met.

The MoJ has proposed a 15% increase, the minimum recommended by Sir Christopher Bellamy’s criminal legal aid review, to be introduced in October. However, 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.

Meanwhile, the Law Society has warned MoJ proposals for defence solicitors purport to be a15% increase but in fact amount only to a 9% increase. Justice minister James Cartlidge set out plans this week to implement the increase by the end of September.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Rates paid by the state to criminal defence firms have been stuck in a time warp since the 1990s.’

Issue: 7984 / 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