*/
The publicly funded Bar is facing an “annus horribilis”, with yet more proposed cuts – this time to criminal defence fees, writes Desmond Browne QC
Once upon a time nothing happened in the Long Vacation. No longer. At 9am on Thursday, 20 August the phone rang in High Holborn and it was the Legal Aid Minister on the line. His bombshell news was of yet another Consultation Paper from the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”). The Paper which arrived that afternoon bore the title “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms”. This deceptive euphemism disguised the fact that the contents were no more than a catalogue of proposed cuts – weeks before the Prime Minister first used the C-word in his speech to the TUC at Blackpool. Of course, euphemism becomes necessary, when cuts of 23% in defence fees are proposed. You then have to call them “efficiency savings”, when in truth they are the very reverse. They will damage efficiency and quality advocacy by driving experienced practitioners out of the work.
Both we, and the MoJ, know that has already happened in family law. It was conclusively demonstrated by the recent King’s College, London survey for the FLBA. By mid-September the LSC had still not decided what cuts to impose in family fees, but in July the Commons Justice Committee warned that if the scheme was implemented as proposed, there was a serious risk of an exodus of experienced practitioners from publicly funded family law. It will be no different with criminal work.
Nothing which has happened so far in what is proving to be an “annus horribilis” for the publicly funded Bar has caused anything like the postbag of outrage reaching me about these cuts. Hence only one topic in my column this month. The rage is fully justified, when one reads Lord Bach’s stated belief that his proposed cuts are “policy changes, which are necessary, irrespective of economic circumstances”. In seeking to lower defence fees to the level of those paid by the CPS, the government is, quite simply, tearing up the Carter bargain. Their reasons turn logic on its head.
Take, for example, their reliance on the CBA’s evidence to the Justice Committee in October 2008 that it was “concerned at the marked discrepancy between the fees paid to prosecution advocates and defence advocates in the Crown Court”. The MoJ knows perfectly well that this was an argument for removing the anomalous differential by raising prosecution fees (which were not addressed by Carter) to the level of RAGFS fees. Indeed, prolonged negotiations with the CPS had been taking place to achieve that very objective. Meantime, practitioners continued to accept prosecution work in the belief that an increase in paltry fees (particularly for sex cases) was close at hand. Many are now re-considering.
It is evidence of how ill thought out are these proposals that the LSC seems to have been as much surprised as the professions. On 11 September they announced that tendering for the 2010 Criminal Contract due to begin in October has been deferred for “at least two months”. Also deferred was the start of the BVT pilot in Bristol and Manchester for police station and magistrates’ court work. To their credit, the LSC have acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to start the tendering process until the rates for advocacy are known.
It’s an ill wind …
Desmond Browne QC is Bar Chairman
Once upon a time nothing happened in the Long Vacation. No longer. At 9am on Thursday, 20 August the phone rang in High Holborn and it was the Legal Aid Minister on the line. His bombshell news was of yet another Consultation Paper from the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”). The Paper which arrived that afternoon bore the title “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms”. This deceptive euphemism disguised the fact that the contents were no more than a catalogue of proposed cuts – weeks before the Prime Minister first used the C-word in his speech to the TUC at Blackpool. Of course, euphemism becomes necessary, when cuts of 23% in defence fees are proposed. You then have to call them “efficiency savings”, when in truth they are the very reverse. They will damage efficiency and quality advocacy by driving experienced practitioners out of the work.
Both we, and the MoJ, know that has already happened in family law. It was conclusively demonstrated by the recent King’s College, London survey for the FLBA. By mid-September the LSC had still not decided what cuts to impose in family fees, but in July the Commons Justice Committee warned that if the scheme was implemented as proposed, there was a serious risk of an exodus of experienced practitioners from publicly funded family law. It will be no different with criminal work.
Nothing which has happened so far in what is proving to be an “annus horribilis” for the publicly funded Bar has caused anything like the postbag of outrage reaching me about these cuts. Hence only one topic in my column this month. The rage is fully justified, when one reads Lord Bach’s stated belief that his proposed cuts are “policy changes, which are necessary, irrespective of economic circumstances”. In seeking to lower defence fees to the level of those paid by the CPS, the government is, quite simply, tearing up the Carter bargain. Their reasons turn logic on its head.
Take, for example, their reliance on the CBA’s evidence to the Justice Committee in October 2008 that it was “concerned at the marked discrepancy between the fees paid to prosecution advocates and defence advocates in the Crown Court”. The MoJ knows perfectly well that this was an argument for removing the anomalous differential by raising prosecution fees (which were not addressed by Carter) to the level of RAGFS fees. Indeed, prolonged negotiations with the CPS had been taking place to achieve that very objective. Meantime, practitioners continued to accept prosecution work in the belief that an increase in paltry fees (particularly for sex cases) was close at hand. Many are now re-considering.
It is evidence of how ill thought out are these proposals that the LSC seems to have been as much surprised as the professions. On 11 September they announced that tendering for the 2010 Criminal Contract due to begin in October has been deferred for “at least two months”. Also deferred was the start of the BVT pilot in Bristol and Manchester for police station and magistrates’ court work. To their credit, the LSC have acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to start the tendering process until the rates for advocacy are known.
It’s an ill wind …
Desmond Browne QC is Bar Chairman
The publicly funded Bar is facing an “annus horribilis”, with yet more proposed cuts – this time to criminal defence fees, writes Desmond Browne QC
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Leading legal DNA, drug, and alcohol testing provider AlphaBiolabs has made its first Giving Back charity draw of 2024 with Andrew Sibson, a Legal Officer at Leeds City Council, being chosen as its first winner
Discover Lloyd’s unique approach to financial planning and experience working with barristers
Trust Delaunay Wealth to stand by your side amid the uncertainties ahead, writes Lloyd French
Lighting fires that cast unfairness into the shadows, creating history at home and abroad, and being comfortable with who you are – the remarkable criminal and international human rights barrister Kirsty Brimelow KC
Marking International Women's Day, Will Tyler KC interviews two female silks at the helm of two huge specialist Bar associations about their lives and careers – finding a common theme both to their success and the challenges facing their respective Bars
No longer an exclusive boys’ club, but still some way to go. To mark International Women's Day, Millie Rai describes what it’s like being a young female barrister at the Commercial Chancery Bar
If we fail to nurture women’s collective talent, half the population of this country will not be properly represented – from the junior Criminal Bar right up to the senior Judiciary. We cannot let all the hard work be undone, says Tana Adkin KC on International Women's Day
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession