header-logo header-logo

30 March 2018
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Barristers will ‘strike’

andrew_walker_for_chairs_column_site_0

Criminal barristers have voted to take direct action from Sunday, 1 April in response to the revised Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS), which is due to take effect on the same day.

Some 90% of 2,317 criminal barristers responding to a Criminal Bar Association (CBA) survey backed the move. Barristers will refuse to take work from 1 April and will hold days of action. They are calling on the Ministry of Justice to delay the implementation of the new scheme or suspend its operation.

The CBA describe the revised AGFS as ‘the last straw’ after fee cuts of nearly 40% in real terms since 2007. It says it faces a recruitment and retention crisis.

Angela Rafferty QC, CBA chair, said: ‘The system is desperate as are we.

‘We are informing our members today that they should consider not taking any work from April 1, the implementation date of the reforms. We will hold days of actions. We will fight to improve the justice system for us and everyone else. We announce this action today with heavy hearts.’

It has also emerged that more than a third of the Criminal Bar are planning on leaving the profession. In a recent Bar Council survey, more than a third of criminal barristers were dissatisfied with their careers and either considering alternatives or planning to leave the Criminal Bar soon—more than double the rate reported in other areas of practice. The main reasons given were poor income and work-life balance. 

In a joint statement, Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar (pictured), and Richard Atkins QC, Vice Chair of the Bar, gave full backing to their criminal law colleagues.

They said: ‘Legal aid across the board—including criminal legal aid—requires sufficient funding from the government. 

‘There is just no alternative if we want to achieve effective, fair and efficient justice.  The current level of funding is just not sufficient. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) budget has been slashed across the board in the last decade. The effects, in every area, are becoming ever clearer: courts and prisons in a deplorable state of repair, leading to unacceptable conditions; litigants struggling to deal with their own cases without legal help in the most trying of circumstances; overloaded courts and judges; increasing delays; and judicial morale at rock bottom, to name but a few.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'We are extremely disappointed with the position the CBA has taken today, especially given that they and other members of the bar participated fully in the design of the scheme.

‘Our reforms will reflect the actual work done in court, representing better value for the tax payer, and will replace an archaic scheme under which barristers were able to bill by pages of evidence.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll