*/
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
