header-logo header-logo

Barristers will ‘strike’

30 March 2018
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
andrew_walker_for_chairs_column_site_0

Criminal barristers have voted to take direct action from Sunday, 1 April in response to the revised Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which is due to take effect on the same day.

Some 90% of 2,317 criminal barristers responding to a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) survey backed the move. Barristers will refuse to take work from 1 April and will hold days of action. They are calling on the Ministry of Justice to delay the implementation of the new scheme or suspend its operation.

The CBA describe the revised AGFS as ‘the last straw’ after fee cuts of nearly 40% in real terms since 2007. It says it faces a recruitment and retention crisis.

Angela Rafferty QC, CBA chair, said: ‘The system is desperate as are we.

‘We are informing our members today that they should consider not taking any work from April 1, the implementation date of the reforms. We will hold days of actions. We will fight to improve the justice system for us and everyone else. We announce this action today with heavy hearts.’

It has also emerged that more than a third of the Criminal Bar are planning on leaving the profession. In a recent Bar Council survey, more than a third of criminal barristers were dissatisfied with their careers and either considering alternatives or planning to leave the Criminal Bar soon—more than double the rate reported in other areas of practice. The main reasons given were poor income and work-life balance. 

In a joint statement, Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar (pictured), and Richard Atkins QC, Vice Chair of the Bar, gave full backing to their criminal law colleagues.

They said: ‘Legal aid across the board—including criminal legal aid—requires sufficient funding from the government. 

‘There is just no alternative if we want to achieve effective, fair and efficient justice.  The current level of funding is just not sufficient. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget has been slashed across the board in the last decade. The effects, in every area, are becoming ever clearer: courts and prisons in a deplorable state of repair, leading to unacceptable conditions; litigants struggling to deal with their own cases without legal help in the most trying of circumstances; overloaded courts and judges; increasing delays; and judicial morale at rock bottom, to name but a few.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'We are extremely disappointed with the position the CBA has taken today, especially given that they and other members of the bar participated fully in the design of the scheme.

‘Our reforms will reflect the actual work done in court, representing better value for the tax payer, and will replace an archaic scheme under which barristers were able to bill by pages of evidence.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll