*/
The Ministry of Justice is refusing Bar Council requests to extend the deadline for “inadequate and unfair” consultations on Very High Cost Cases (“VHCCs”) and advocates’ graduated fees despite threats of judicial review.
Solicitors acting for the Bar Council have now written, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Claims, to the Legal Aid Minister, Lord Bach, and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”), Sir Bill Callaghan, in order to advance proceedings for judicial review.
The Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association say they have not been given enough information to respond to the LSC consultation on VHCCs. They asked the government to combine the deadlines for responses to these two consultations and to join them to the timetable for the response to the proposed consultation on a single graduated fee for Crown Court cases.
Nick Green QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The Bar Council asked the Ministry of Justice and the LSC to adopt a co-ordinated and fair approach to their decision-making on the very important matters which are the subject of these consultations.
“The government has rejected our request to co-ordinate the consultation timetables and refused to supply us with the information for which we asked to enable the Bar to respond to the two current consultations. These are inextricably linked to an, as yet, unpublished third consultation. “The principal basis of our claim will be that the consultation exercise is unfair and, in our view, unlawful.”
A joint statement from the MoJ and LSC said: “[We] received a letter from the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association on 21 January requesting the deadlines for our current consultations on advocates graduated fees and VHCCs be extended.
“We consider that the current deadlines give adequate time for stakeholders to respond properly and fully to both consultations. We hope the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association will reconsider their position. “The proposals to pilot a single graduated fee will be consulted on in due course.”
The Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association say they have not been given enough information to respond to the LSC consultation on VHCCs. They asked the government to combine the deadlines for responses to these two consultations and to join them to the timetable for the response to the proposed consultation on a single graduated fee for Crown Court cases.
Nick Green QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The Bar Council asked the Ministry of Justice and the LSC to adopt a co-ordinated and fair approach to their decision-making on the very important matters which are the subject of these consultations.
“The government has rejected our request to co-ordinate the consultation timetables and refused to supply us with the information for which we asked to enable the Bar to respond to the two current consultations. These are inextricably linked to an, as yet, unpublished third consultation. “The principal basis of our claim will be that the consultation exercise is unfair and, in our view, unlawful.”
A joint statement from the MoJ and LSC said: “[We] received a letter from the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association on 21 January requesting the deadlines for our current consultations on advocates graduated fees and VHCCs be extended.
“We consider that the current deadlines give adequate time for stakeholders to respond properly and fully to both consultations. We hope the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association will reconsider their position. “The proposals to pilot a single graduated fee will be consulted on in due course.”
The Ministry of Justice is refusing Bar Council requests to extend the deadline for “inadequate and unfair” consultations on Very High Cost Cases (“VHCCs”) and advocates’ graduated fees despite threats of judicial review.
Solicitors acting for the Bar Council have now written, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Claims, to the Legal Aid Minister, Lord Bach, and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”), Sir Bill Callaghan, in order to advance proceedings for judicial review.
A decade of cuts and the brutal pandemic have left courts and barristers struggling to cope – a bid for justice spending
Philip N Bristow explains how to unlock your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
The family law system is in crisis and a failure to recognise it as such demeans the Herculean efforts of all involved, writes Celestine Greenwood, an exhausted family practitioner
Should we cap numbers coming to the Bar? Or help them make data driven decisions? asks IshanKolhatkar
Time to look afresh at the imposter syndrome narrative? Why pathologizing normal anxieties can be unhelpful to barristers and future generations. By Kate Brunner QC and Sarah Regan
Shifting the taboo, two silks talk about the menopause, its impact on women at the Bar and the need for a profession-wide rethink. By Lyndsey de Mestre QC and Brie Stevens-Hoare QC
In a profession which can be attached to, and defined by, archaic stereotypes, how to be yourself, explore new areas and own your own time? Here are Lennart Poulsen's 'lessons learnt'...
