*/
IN accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Claims, solicitors acting for the Bar Council have written to the Legal Aid Minister, Lord Bach and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Commission, Sir Bill Callaghan in order to advance proceedings for judicial review of the Government’s consultations on criminal legal aid.
The consultations concern the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) scheme which have been initiated by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively. The Bar Council’s action follows the rejection by the MoJ and the LSC of the Bar’s request that the Government should combine the deadlines for responses to these consultations and to join them to the timetable for the response to the proposed consultation on a single graduated fee for Crown Court cases. A full pre-action letter will be sent shortly.
Bar Chairman Nicholas Green QC said:
‘The Bar Council asked the MoJ and the LSC to adopt a coordinated 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 timetabes 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 These are inextricably linked to an, as yet, unpublished third consultation.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.’
Bar Chairman Nicholas Green QC said:
‘The Bar Council asked the MoJ and the LSC to adopt a coordinated 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 timetabes 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 These are inextricably linked to an, as yet, unpublished third consultation.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.’
IN accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Claims, solicitors acting for the Bar Council have written to the Legal Aid Minister, Lord Bach and to the Chairman of the Legal Services Commission, Sir Bill Callaghan in order to advance proceedings for judicial review of the Government’s consultations on criminal legal aid.
The consultations concern the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) scheme which have been initiated by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively. The Bar Council’s action follows the rejection by the MoJ and the LSC of the Bar’s request that the Government should combine the deadlines for responses to these consultations and to join them to the timetable for the response to the proposed consultation on a single graduated fee for Crown Court cases. A full pre-action letter will be sent shortly.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
