*/
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 reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
With gender earnings inequality at the Bar getting worse, not better, Judith Ayling KC discusses concrete solutions and collective action – including steps taken by the Personal Injuries Bar Association
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
