header-logo header-logo

20 March 2019
Issue: 7833 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Bar Council calls for pay parity

Bar Council calls on DPP to address pay ‘iniquity’

Self-employed barristers prosecuting cases deserve parity with lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Bar Council has said.

Earlier this month, the civil service trade union, the FDA, negotiated a 10% pay rise for CPS Crown Prosecutors; increases of up to 8% for prosecutors, professionals and senior managers; and a 13.5% increase in overtime rates. The rises will be paid over the course of two years.

FDA national officer Steven Littlewood said the pay rise was a ‘well overdue reward for long-serving staff, who have been trapped in the lower ends of pay ranges for years’.

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said he was pleased for CPS lawyers.

‘This, however, is in stark contrast to the failure to increase the levels of pay for the self-employed members of the Bar who provide an essential public service prosecuting the vast majority of the serious cases tried in the Crown Court,’ he said.

‘The pay scheme under which self-employed barristers are remunerated has had no increases since its inception in 2001 (and has therefore been eroded by inflation) and actually suffered a 5% cut in 2012. There can be no justification for one part of the system to receive a pay increase whilst another part is ignored.

‘The Bar Council looks to the Director of Public Prosecutions to address this iniquity as a matter of urgency.’

Meanwhile, Criminal Bar chair Chris Henley QC, in his Monday Message, described fees for prosecuting as ‘appalling, bordering on the financially immoral, and in many instances pound for pound lower than they were 20 years ago’.

Henley said he received a message from a head of chambers last week that two barristers had just resigned—a senior and a middle ranking junior. Both had left the Bar ‘because the cuts have made the future entirely unsustainable’.

Issue: 7833 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
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