*/
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
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
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.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen