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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll