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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
Peter Kandler’s honorary KC marks long-overdue recognition of a man who helped prise open a closed legal world. In NLJ this week, Roger Smith, columnist and former director of JUSTICE, traces how Kandler founded the UK’s first law centre in 1970, challenging a profession that was largely seen as 'fixers for the rich and apologists for criminals'
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll