*/
The Ministry of Justice looks set to launch a new recruitment drive to boost senior counsel in the Public Defender Service (PDS) in an attempt to create a viable source of criminal defence representation outside the independent criminal Bar. Several upcoming very high cost cases (VHCCs) will be affected if barristers continue to refuse to work at the new rates.
The outcome of the appeal of the stay of proceedings in R v Crawley is awaited. The Financial Conduct Authority, which prosecuted the case, sought leave to appeal the ruling before Sir Brian Leveson and Lords Justices Davis and Treacy on 13 May. Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling was represented as an interested party. Judgment was reserved.
The complex land banking scheme fraud case, dubbed “Operation Cotton”, was halted by Judge Anthony Leonard QC at Southwark Crown Court because the five defendants had been unable to find any self-employed barrister with the right expertise willing to take on the case under the reduced rates.
A Legal Aid Agency spokesperson said: “We are committed to ensuring availability of suitably qualified criminal defence advocates to deal with all VHCCs which are pending.” As Counsel went to press, no advertisements had yet been placed for additional recruits to the PDS since the appeal hearing. The Agency said that any recruitment process would be publicised and that VHCCs remain open for members of the self-employed Bar to act in.
A Ministry of Justice (MOJ) spokesperson said: “Barristers have refused to work on this case – and a number of other VHCCs – because they do not agree with savings the Government is making to legal aid.
“The Government will take the necessary steps to ensure representation by putting in place measures to cover all VHCCs that would otherwise be disrupted, given the current circumstances. It remains open to the Bar to take these cases in the meantime. The Government hopes that the Bar will meet their representation requirements on these and any future VHCCs.”
The spokesman added that the Lord Chancellor adopted a neutral position in relation to the appeal in this particular case.
Justice Minster Simon Hughes MP, a barrister, told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that the cuts were “difficult” and he would rather not have them, but that “on this sort of case, the QCs would be paid £100,000” and “junior counsel would be paid about £60,000”.
“They are not underpaid, they are not small amounts of money... We are not talking about people at the beginning of their career scrimping around, hard-up for money.
“This case, we believe, could have had lawyers to represent the defendants. It would have needed a bit of time. In the end the judge decided he was not willing to allow that time to happen.
“Measures are being put in place by the department to make sure that we don’t have cases not going ahead because there isn’t a lawyer.”
Barristers have said that the MOJ has over-estimated the earnings for this case by 30-50% and pointed to the stark contrast with the annual salary offered by the PDS to QCs.
According to calculations released separately by the South East Circuit: “It costs taxpayers £27,750 more to employ a PDS QC to do a VHCC than to get a self-employed QC to do it – at the rates before they were cut by the MOJ. Whilst the PDS QC has a salary of £125,000, the self-employed QC has to pay his own expenses (chambers rent, pension, travel, clerks fees, admin. support, clothing, insurance etc, computer) out of his fee, making the equivalent salary at least 35% less – about £60,000 – to do the most demanding and complicated fraud and terrorism cases.”
Nigel Lithman QC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said in his weekly update to members: “The CBA, Bar Council and Circuit Leaders made it crystal clear to the MOJ that although it was a matter of individual choice, they anticipated the Bar would not do the work cut by 30% and could not agree to deliver that as part of any deal.”
“We were given the assurance that the PDS would not be expanded beyond the recruitment interviews that had already taken place. Any attempt to do so now would be seen by the Bar as a ‘widening of the goal posts’ and a breach of the good faith and reasonable position shown by the Bar leaders in recommending an acceptance of the deal.”
The complex land banking scheme fraud case, dubbed “Operation Cotton”, was halted by Judge Anthony Leonard QC at Southwark Crown Court because the five defendants had been unable to find any self-employed barrister with the right expertise willing to take on the case under the reduced rates.
A Legal Aid Agency spokesperson said: “We are committed to ensuring availability of suitably qualified criminal defence advocates to deal with all VHCCs which are pending.” As Counsel went to press, no advertisements had yet been placed for additional recruits to the PDS since the appeal hearing. The Agency said that any recruitment process would be publicised and that VHCCs remain open for members of the self-employed Bar to act in.
A Ministry of Justice (MOJ) spokesperson said: “Barristers have refused to work on this case – and a number of other VHCCs – because they do not agree with savings the Government is making to legal aid.
“The Government will take the necessary steps to ensure representation by putting in place measures to cover all VHCCs that would otherwise be disrupted, given the current circumstances. It remains open to the Bar to take these cases in the meantime. The Government hopes that the Bar will meet their representation requirements on these and any future VHCCs.”
The spokesman added that the Lord Chancellor adopted a neutral position in relation to the appeal in this particular case.
Justice Minster Simon Hughes MP, a barrister, told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics that the cuts were “difficult” and he would rather not have them, but that “on this sort of case, the QCs would be paid £100,000” and “junior counsel would be paid about £60,000”.
“They are not underpaid, they are not small amounts of money... We are not talking about people at the beginning of their career scrimping around, hard-up for money.
“This case, we believe, could have had lawyers to represent the defendants. It would have needed a bit of time. In the end the judge decided he was not willing to allow that time to happen.
“Measures are being put in place by the department to make sure that we don’t have cases not going ahead because there isn’t a lawyer.”
Barristers have said that the MOJ has over-estimated the earnings for this case by 30-50% and pointed to the stark contrast with the annual salary offered by the PDS to QCs.
According to calculations released separately by the South East Circuit: “It costs taxpayers £27,750 more to employ a PDS QC to do a VHCC than to get a self-employed QC to do it – at the rates before they were cut by the MOJ. Whilst the PDS QC has a salary of £125,000, the self-employed QC has to pay his own expenses (chambers rent, pension, travel, clerks fees, admin. support, clothing, insurance etc, computer) out of his fee, making the equivalent salary at least 35% less – about £60,000 – to do the most demanding and complicated fraud and terrorism cases.”
Nigel Lithman QC, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said in his weekly update to members: “The CBA, Bar Council and Circuit Leaders made it crystal clear to the MOJ that although it was a matter of individual choice, they anticipated the Bar would not do the work cut by 30% and could not agree to deliver that as part of any deal.”
“We were given the assurance that the PDS would not be expanded beyond the recruitment interviews that had already taken place. Any attempt to do so now would be seen by the Bar as a ‘widening of the goal posts’ and a breach of the good faith and reasonable position shown by the Bar leaders in recommending an acceptance of the deal.”
The Ministry of Justice looks set to launch a new recruitment drive to boost senior counsel in the Public Defender Service (PDS) in an attempt to create a viable source of criminal defence representation outside the independent criminal Bar. Several upcoming very high cost cases (VHCCs) will be affected if barristers continue to refuse to work at the new rates.
The outcome of the appeal of the stay of proceedings in R v Crawley is awaited. The Financial Conduct Authority, which prosecuted the case, sought leave to appeal the ruling before Sir Brian Leveson and Lords Justices Davis and Treacy on 13 May. Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling was represented as an interested party. Judgment was reserved.
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
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt