*/
THE Chairman of the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has reacted angrily to the deep cuts to publicly funded criminal barristers’ fees, which came into force on 27 April 2010. Barristers’ fixed fees for criminal defence will be cut by a total of 13.5% over the next 3 years starting with an immediate cut of 4.5%.
These cuts are contained in legislation rushed through Parliament by the Ministry of Justice the day after the Easter break, the same day the election was announced.
The Chairman of the Bar, Nicholas Green QC said:
“We are extremely angry that the Government decided in a few days over Easter, and in the dying throes of the last Parliament, to impose these savage cuts. It appears to have little concern for the consequences on the administration of justice and the public interest in
ensuring access to justice. The Bar does not seek to avoid its fair share of the pain arising out of cuts to public spending but no other part of the public sector has been required to accept a cut of this depth in pay.
Moreover, there are far better ways of making savings which will do much less harm to the administration of justice. The Bar has made it clear that it is committed to working with government to make savings, but these approaches have been ignored. Given the unnecessary haste with which these cuts were imposed, the Bar must debate their impact on all levels of the profession and particularly on the Young Bar, which will be most badly affected by them. I am eager to convene a meeting of the Bar in order to hear the voice of the profession on this issue so that we can consider our options and agree the way forward.”
He added:
“The Government has claimed that it will not cut front-line services, but that is exactly what these cuts will achieve. We oppose these cuts
in the strongest possible terms and will canvass the views of the profession as a whole, to ensure its voice is heard.”
These cuts are contained in legislation rushed through Parliament by the Ministry of Justice the day after the Easter break, the same day the election was announced.
The Chairman of the Bar, Nicholas Green QC said:
“We are extremely angry that the Government decided in a few days over Easter, and in the dying throes of the last Parliament, to impose these savage cuts. It appears to have little concern for the consequences on the administration of justice and the public interest in
ensuring access to justice. The Bar does not seek to avoid its fair share of the pain arising out of cuts to public spending but no other part of the public sector has been required to accept a cut of this depth in pay.
Moreover, there are far better ways of making savings which will do much less harm to the administration of justice. The Bar has made it clear that it is committed to working with government to make savings, but these approaches have been ignored. Given the unnecessary haste with which these cuts were imposed, the Bar must debate their impact on all levels of the profession and particularly on the Young Bar, which will be most badly affected by them. I am eager to convene a meeting of the Bar in order to hear the voice of the profession on this issue so that we can consider our options and agree the way forward.”
He added:
“The Government has claimed that it will not cut front-line services, but that is exactly what these cuts will achieve. We oppose these cuts
in the strongest possible terms and will canvass the views of the profession as a whole, to ensure its voice is heard.”
THE Chairman of the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has reacted angrily to the deep cuts to publicly funded criminal barristers’ fees, which came into force on 27 April 2010. Barristers’ fixed fees for criminal defence will be cut by a total of 13.5% over the next 3 years starting with an immediate cut of 4.5%.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will