header-logo header-logo

Criminal proposals deemed ‘inadequate’

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll