header-logo header-logo

CBA strike suspended… for now

11 October 2022
Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail
Criminal law barristers have voted to suspend their strike action, following a revised offer from the justice secretary, but warned the dispute would not be resolved until the offer was implemented.

The ballot result was 57% in favour of suspension against almost 43% for continuing the strike (1,488 voted yes to suspending the action while 1,117 voted no, out of 2,605 votes cast).

Justice secretary Brandon Lewis offered an extra £54m, raising fees by 15% for the ‘vast majority’ of cases currently before or due to come before the Crown Court. Under the previous offer, the 15% rise would only apply to cases starting on or after 1 October.

Announcing the ballot results, Criminal Bar Association (CBA) chair Kirsty Brimelow KC (pictured) and CBA executive members said: ‘Barristers should not have to fight so hard again to bring this responsibility back home to government.

‘The offer from the government is an overdue start. Its acceptance by barristers is on the basis that it is implemented.

‘Otherwise, the CBA will ballot again to lift the suspension of action… our members remain ready to act again.’

The CBA said it would now focus on setting up the criminal legal aid advisory board.

Mark Fenhalls KC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘The offer was the culmination of many months of work and pressure, and unprecedented personal sacrifice by barristers.’

However, Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The justice minister may think he has got one problem off his table but there are bigger problems coming his way as this dispute continues.

‘This is another example of a government U-turn making a bad situation worse’. She warned solicitors would see the government had found ‘a magic money tree to stop the disruptive action of barristers—money that was not available to pay solicitors fairly.’

Boyce called for parity on the 15% fee increase—solicitors’ fees are increasing by just 9%.

Boyce said: ‘If the gap isn’t bridged by the time the government publishes their full response to the independent review in November, we have made it clear we will advise our members that there is no viable future in criminal legal aid work.’

Issue: 7998 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal , Legal aid focus
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