header-logo header-logo

04 October 2018
Issue: 7811 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

£4m shortfall could spark direct action protests

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) is consulting heads of chambers about potentially resuming direct action protests unless the government fulfils its promise of extra funds.

In May, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) offered criminal barristers an extra £15m for publicly funded defence work in the Crown Court in return for the Bar suspending its boycott of reforms to the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme.

The deal was struck to prevent criminal barristers from engaging in an additional ‘no returns’ protest, under which barristers would refuse to cover for each other on cases where there was a timetable clash.

A 51.5% majority of more than 3,000 criminal barristers voted to accept the MoJ offer. However, CBA chair Chris Henley QC says the current form of the scheme, when applied to 2017–18 figures, would fall £4m short of the promise. He has also complained about delays to the four-week MoJ consultation on the spending increase. It was originally pitched to begin in mid-July, did not start until 31 August and has now been extended by a further fortnight to 12 October.

In his message to members this week, Henley said: ‘£15m must mean £15m. Every week that passes saves the MoJ money. The 1% [increase in fees] scheduled for April must be brought forward to compensate.

‘The delay is causing increasing anger, as are some of the fees now being billed under the new scheme.’

Henley said a barrister was recently paid a fee of only £900 for a guilty plea in a multihanded rape and grooming case with 15,000 pages of evidence. ‘Fees at this level for many, many hours of work, and the heavy professional responsibility, will decimate career progression and threaten the viability of chambers,’ he added.

Issue: 7811 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll