header-logo header-logo

27 February 2014
Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Defence lawyers' "worst fears"

Criminal defence lawyers have expressed fury after the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published its response to its controversial consultation on criminal legal aid.

Under the new proposals fees will be reduced by 6% and a new version of the Advocates Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) will be introduced—this will be reviewed after one year.

An unlimited number of own client contracts for solicitors will be allowed, while 525 duty contracts will be made available.

Duty solicitor fees will be reduced by 8.75% for cases starting after 20 March, with a further reduction planned for next year. While a a review will be held to look at ways to minimise the number of pre-trial hearings which require advocates to travel to and attend court—currently, barristers often receive as little as £80 for a pre-trial hearing from which they must pay their own travel.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said “more appropriate” fees would be paid in future to defence lawyers where a case is dropped, as well as interim payments during long trials, while extra information and support will be given to solicitors preparing for the new tender process. However, Nicholas Lavender QC, chair of the Bar Council, said the MoJ’s response “confirmed our worst fears”. “We are bitterly disappointed that, despite a sustained campaign emphasising that these proposals are contrary to the public interest, the government is pressing ahead with significant cuts to legal aid for advocacy in the Crown Court,” he said.

“These cuts are financially unnecessary, will cause significant damage to the justice system and to our international reputation for upholding the rule of law and will drive skilled and experienced advocates away from publicly-funded criminal work.”

Lavender said that, even before the current proposals, fees for Crown Court cases had been “savagely” cut by 21% on average since 2007 (a 37% cut in real terms). Defence lawyers have planned a second day of protest for 7 March, when they will boycott the courts. Criminal Bar chair, Nigel Lithman QC has also indicated he will call on senior members of the Bar to boycott Grayling’s flagship Magna Carta conference next year – which would be a serious embarrassment for the government.

The Law Society said it would support its members through the changes.

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll