header-logo header-logo

23 April 2019
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Barristers threaten action to protest CPS fees

Nearly 95% of criminal barristers who prosecute cases would be prepared to take direct action in protest against the fees paid by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Responding to a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) survey, published this week, 1,870 barristers said they would take days of action and adopt a no returns policy if all other routes to reform were exhausted.

More than 2,000 barristers took part in the survey, and the overwhelming majority complained they are overburdened and underpaid. 99.3% said ‘no’, when asked if they felt current rates for prosecution advocacy reflect the demands, skills and responsibilities involved.

Nearly 85% do not feel valued by the CPS, and similar numbers said the amount of work expected has increased in the past five years, including the amount of time spent on materials that are then not used.

Moreover, 98% agreed counsel should be paid a refresher fee for the second day in all cases; 93% thought an additional fee should be paid for written work, and 94% thought they should be paid for reviewing unused material.

Current rates have not increased since the CPS advocacy scheme launched in 2001―and fees were cut by 5% in 2012.

CBA chair Chris Henley QC said it was ‘beyond ridiculous’ that a barrister could spend a whole day in court presenting a serious criminal case for £46.50.

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘One of my priorities for 2019 is to ensure that those members of the Bar who do publicly funded work, are fairly and properly remunerated.

‘The many barristers who are instructed by the CPS perform a vital public function, without whom the system of justice in this country would not operate.’

Last year, the CBA negotiated fee increases of £23m for defence work after protests by criminal barristers. 

Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll