header-logo header-logo

Criminal Bar ‘will take action’

02 December 2020
Issue: 7913 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail
Plans for extended operating hours may provoke strike action

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has hinted at potential strike action if the government presses ahead with extended operating hours.

An HM Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) ‘Consultation with legal professionals on COVID operating hours in the Crown Courts’ ends on 10 December. Extended operating hours (with courts sitting 9am-1pm and 2pm-6pm) is currently being piloted in seven Crown Courts.

Extended operating hours were discussed last week at a meeting between the CBA, other legal professionals and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS). CBA chair James Mulholland QC, in his message to members this week, said ‘we were, effectively, not being asked but being told that there were plans for Extended Operating Hours Courts to go ahead from January 2021’.

After setting out the CBA’s objections to the plan, Mulholland said: ‘In 2015 we took action, refusing returns, in solidarity with criminal legal aid solicitors…Cuts to criminal advocates’ legal aid fees and a failure to increase prosecution fees resulted in the Criminal Bar balloting for and taking action in 2018 and 2019…If HMCTS maintain their position that these courts will be introduced, we will take action.’

He said HMCTS has failed to conduct a proper assessment of the plan, in breach of the Equality Act 2010, adding: ‘The consultation process now initiated provides insufficient time for proper representations to be made.’

Mulholland warned extended operating hours would deter people from the criminal Bar, particularly women, citing a CBA survey three years ago showing it would have a ‘very significant discriminatory impact on those with young children and other caring responsibilities’. He said the Spending Review commitment of £275m last week should be used to expand the physical court space available.

The backlog of cases in Crown Courts has increased to 50,000 from about 40,000 in March, and will take years to clear, according to evidence given by the Lord Chief Justice to the Justice Committee. He predicted increasing numbers of cases coming through the courts, and said ‘even if we were able to run those courts flat out, we would be retrieving the backlog only a little, maybe by 50 cases a week or that sort’. 

Issue: 7913 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession , 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