header-logo header-logo

Criminal barristers vote for direct action

19 January 2022
Issue: 7963 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Barristers will down tools if the government has not agreed by mid-February to raise legal aid fees by the end of March

Nearly 2,000 practitioners (about 80% of the Criminal Bar) responded last week to the Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA’s) seven-day poll on direct action. Their grievance is Ministry of Justice (MoJ) delays in responding to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid.

In December, Sir Christopher’s review recommended at least £135m extra per year be added to the budget in order to keep the criminal justice system functioning effectively. This would increase funding for solicitors and barristers by 15% above present levels, amounting to an extra £35m in fees.

Sir Christopher said there was ‘no scope for further delay’ in increasing fee rates.

However, the Justice Secretary has said he will not publish a full response until the end of March, followed by a consultation that is unlikely to conclude until the end of June. 

The CBA survey found 96% agreed Sir Christopher’s recommended 15% minimum increase was insufficient to ensure the long-term viability of the Criminal Bar.

Some 96.5% were in favour of taking action including adopting a ‘no returns’ policy as a minimum if the government did not commit to a ‘substantial increase’ in pay rates. 94% favoured action unless the government published a full response to the review, with a timetable for implementation, by 14 February and completed the statutory consultation by the end of March.

CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC and vice-chair Kirsty Brimelow QC said: ‘We have waited too long. We will wait no longer. Solidarity at the Criminal Bar has never been stronger. There is no going back.’

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The 15% increase in criminal legal aid rates recommended in Sir Christopher’s report should be implemented immediately. 

‘If this does not happen, we fear that our members will leave the market at ever faster rates. Criminal defence solicitors have been waiting 25 years for an increase.’

According to MoJ figures, 1,080 firms held a criminal legal aid contract in September 2021 compared to 1,621 firms in September 2012.

Issue: 7963 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
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