header-logo header-logo

27 May 2022
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Defence solicitors will refuse ‘uneconomic’ cases

Criminal law solicitors joined their colleagues at the Bar this week by taking action in protest at low legal aid fees

Following a 95% vote in favour, London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA) members are refusing to take on burglary instructions from 25 May. This is likely to result in magistrates’ court cases collapsing due to defendants being unable to access a lawyer.

Members may expand to other categories of ‘uneconomic’ cases in future, if demands are not met.

LCCSA president Hesham Puri said defence solicitors taking on low-paid cases like burglary ‘end up paying for the “privilege” to work. Our goodwill has run out.’

Puri said: ‘The public shouldn’t be fooled, there is no recovery plan for justice and the courts. There is no meaningful commitment to law and order.’

Meanwhile, the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has said it may escalate its ‘no returns’ policy (https://bit.ly/3z1TxwD).

In a message to members this week, CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC said: ‘Over the last fortnight, we have received numerous emails and calls from criminal barristers at all levels of seniority expressing their dismay at the intransigence of government in the face of our concerted efforts to slow the progression of cases in the Crown Court.

‘The CBA has never ruled out an escalation of action if such a course is mandated by our membership. The recent feedback we have received from many members indicates a willingness and desire to adopt more disruptive forms of action in conjunction with the current strategy.’

Both solicitors and barristers want ministers to implement Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid chair, Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendations for an immediate increase of at least 15% in funding. In particular, the LCCSA is calling for a 25% increase in magistrates’ court fees and the CBA for a 25% increase in advocacy fees.

Issue: 7980 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll