*/
A deal to ensure proper funding for representation in the most complex criminal trials has today been threatened by a last-minute change of heart by the Government, the Bar said. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have reacted angrily to a new Legal Services Commission consultation paper on pay for so-called Very High Cost Cases – VHCCs – which include some of the most sensitive terror and murder trials before the courts.
Bar representatives have been working with MoJ officials for nearly two years on a flexible pay scheme for senior advocates that would match the pay in each case to its particular circumstances. However, it emerged late in talks last month that the Government wanted to introduce a new, costcutting option for pay in these cases, involving an extension of the existing, fixed-fee scheme for shorter cases to include much longer cases lasting up to 60 days. The consultation paper of 2 December 2009 confirmed the eleventh-hour change.
Commenting on the development, Bar Council Chairman 2009, Desmond Browne QC said:
“Today’s consultation paper drives a coach and horses through two years of patient and careful negotiation to develop a sound advocates’ pay scheme for the most complex terror and murder trials. By looking to impose a short-term, unevaluated, cost-cutting scheme, Ministers are guilty of precisely the short-comings flagged up in last Friday’s National Audit Office report on value for money in
legal aid. Our alternative advocates’ scheme is capable of reflecting the varying characteristics of individual cases, while giving the Government control and predictability in the
cost to the public purse.
The profession’s anger and dismay at this last-minute change of heart by Ministers cannot be exaggerated.”
Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, added:
“The most serious trials need the most skilled advocates, and that requires a pay scheme that will keep them within the system.
Today’s announcement will be greeted with intense frustration by all of those who have worked so hard to develop a workable scheme for advocates which reflects the particular character and demands of each case, while assuring cost control and reducing bureaucracy. We urge the Government to think again before introducing such a crude approach to resourcing some of the most sensitive cases before our courts. Members of the Criminal Bar will understandably question the Government’s commitment to a justice system that reflects the importance the public attaches to seeing serious alleged offences properly tried.”
Commenting on the development, Bar Council Chairman 2009, Desmond Browne QC said:
“Today’s consultation paper drives a coach and horses through two years of patient and careful negotiation to develop a sound advocates’ pay scheme for the most complex terror and murder trials. By looking to impose a short-term, unevaluated, cost-cutting scheme, Ministers are guilty of precisely the short-comings flagged up in last Friday’s National Audit Office report on value for money in
legal aid. Our alternative advocates’ scheme is capable of reflecting the varying characteristics of individual cases, while giving the Government control and predictability in the
cost to the public purse.
The profession’s anger and dismay at this last-minute change of heart by Ministers cannot be exaggerated.”
Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, added:
“The most serious trials need the most skilled advocates, and that requires a pay scheme that will keep them within the system.
Today’s announcement will be greeted with intense frustration by all of those who have worked so hard to develop a workable scheme for advocates which reflects the particular character and demands of each case, while assuring cost control and reducing bureaucracy. We urge the Government to think again before introducing such a crude approach to resourcing some of the most sensitive cases before our courts. Members of the Criminal Bar will understandably question the Government’s commitment to a justice system that reflects the importance the public attaches to seeing serious alleged offences properly tried.”
A deal to ensure proper funding for representation in the most complex criminal trials has today been threatened by a last-minute change of heart by the Government, the Bar said. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have reacted angrily to a new Legal Services Commission consultation paper on pay for so-called Very High Cost Cases – VHCCs – which include some of the most sensitive terror and murder trials before the courts.
Bar representatives have been working with MoJ officials for nearly two years on a flexible pay scheme for senior advocates that would match the pay in each case to its particular circumstances. However, it emerged late in talks last month that the Government wanted to introduce a new, costcutting option for pay in these cases, involving an extension of the existing, fixed-fee scheme for shorter cases to include much longer cases lasting up to 60 days. The consultation paper of 2 December 2009 confirmed the eleventh-hour change.
Justice system requires urgent attention and next steps on the Harman Review
Q&A with Tim Lynch of Jordan Lynch Private Finance
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
Many disabled barristers face entrenched obstacles to KC appointment – both procedural and systemic, writes Diego F Soto-Miranda
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
For over three decades, the Bar Mock Trial Competition has boosted the skills, knowledge and confidence of tens of thousands of state school students – as sixth-form teacher Conor Duffy and Young Citizens’ Akasa Pradhan report
Suzie Miller’s latest play puts the legal system centre stage once more. Will it galvanise change? asks Rehna Azim
