header-logo header-logo

10 June 2022
Issue: 7982 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Criminal proposals deemed ‘inadequate’

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation on reforms proposed by the criminal legal aid review closed this week, with alarm bells raised across the profession

The review was conducted by Sir Christopher Bellamy, who was made a minister at the Ministry of Justice this week, replacing Lord Wolfson, who resigned in April in protest at Partygate. Sir Christopher called for an immediate minimum remuneration increase of 15% across the board. However, the MoJ’s proposals came under fire from solicitors for falling short.

Responding, Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The government proposals amount to just 9%, which is woefully inadequate.

‘This will not reverse the damage to our criminal justice system, persuade young lawyers that they could have a viable career in this sector, prevent the closure of more criminal legal aid firms, or enable the courts backlog to be addressed. Criminal courts are crippled by a lack of judges, court staff, prosecutors and defence lawyers.’

The Bar Council, in its response, warned several of the MoJ’s proposals for changes to the fee schemes were made on the basis they were ‘cost-neutral’. It said: ‘We support investment that is evidence-based. Sir Christopher recommended that the 15% was to be the first step. For the government to state that further changes must be cost-neutral is saying that the government will ignore the evidence.’

Also, any investment would come to advocates ‘many months or even years after Sir Christopher recommended it, with inflation having eroded the benefit of any increase’.

Currently, defence counsel receives £75 for half-day trials and £150 for full-day trials in the magistrates’ court, while the Crown Prosecution Service pays its counsel twice this rate. The Bar Council called for ‘parity’ at ‘the very least’.

CILEX, in its response, said the fees uplifts were ‘a step in the right direction’ but called for an impact review in 24 months and urged the government to grant CILEX professionals higher rights of audience.

The Criminal Bar Association is due to ballot its members this weekend on whether to escalate its protest action. Members have been refusing returns since April.
Issue: 7982 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll