*/
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.
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
