header-logo header-logo

12 June 2019
Issue: 7844 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Criminal Bar strikes deal

Accelerated package of measures could end impasse 

A walkout by criminal barristers protesting low fees is likely to be postponed after the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) struck a deal with the government.

Barristers had voted overwhelmingly in favour of the ‘whole profession’ walkout and for prosecution and defence barristers to refuse returns from 1 July.

However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Attorney General have this week announced ‘an accelerated package of measures’ while a wider review of fees takes place until summer 2020.

The CPS has agreed that, for all hearings/trials underway as at 1 September 2019, all fixed fees will be increased to the level of the Advocates’ Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS), which sets payment levels for defence advocates. Refreshers will be paid from the second, rather then the third, day of trial. Continuation fees in long running trials will not be reduced from day 41. Full fees will be paid from the first day of trial, and barristers will be paid at the conclusion of the trial or other hearing where sentence is adjourned.

Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill QC said the CPS was committed to introducing a fees scheme ‘that gives a fair deal for prosecution advocates, and is affordable and sustainable’.

On the AGFS, the MoJ has agreed to consider by the end of November the issues of unused material, fees for cracked trials and uplifts in paperheavy cases. A government spokesperson said it was ‘only sensible to refocus on areas where professionals have expressed pressing concerns’.

The CBA will now ballot its members again, this time on the new proposals.

CBA chair Chris Henley QC recommended the interim package to CBA members.

Issue: 7844 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll