header-logo header-logo

14 June 2018
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Bar votes to halt protest action

Close vote to end action reflects ‘frustration, anger & concern’

Criminal barristers have voted by a narrow majority to end their protest action and accept the government’s £15m offer on legal aid investment.

Since 1 April, the Criminal Bar has been refusing to take on new cases under the advocates graduated fee scheme (AGFS) in protest at fee cuts for legal aid work. However, the protest came to an end this week when a poll of 3,038 barristers resulted in 1,566 (51.55%) voting to accept the government’s concession and 1,472 (48.45%) voting against.

Barristers had been poised to escalate their protest by refusing returns—where barristers pass on cases due to a timetable clash—when the Ministry of Justice offered an extra £15m. The offer comprises an extra £8m for fraud, drug and child abuse cases, a one per cent increase in the AGFS from next April (worth about £2.5m) and an extra £4.5m for junior barristers.

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) paused its ‘no returns’ action until its members could consider the offer.

Announcing the results of the vote, Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the CBA, said: ‘We still face exceptional difficulties, as do our solicitor colleagues. This will not fix the terrible conditions, the unhealthy and unreasonably onerous working practices and the general decrepitude.

‘However, if we consider it a start we can build on it. The fact we have achieved this small gain shows that we as a profession are both capable and motivated to unite and unite we will if things do not continue to change in the near future.’

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar, and Richard Atkins QC, Vice-Chair of the Bar, said: ‘The situation in the criminal justice system remains dire.

‘This vote will bring action to an end in the short term, but let there be no doubt that the closeness of the vote reflects the very real frustration, anger and concern for the future across the Criminal Bar. Those voting to accept the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) proposal did not do so because they thought that it was a long term solution, any more than did those who voted to reject it. The changes are just a patch repair.’

Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , 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