header-logo header-logo

17 June 2022
Issue: 7983 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Barristers could boycott courts

Criminal barristers are voting on whether to drastically escalate their ‘no returns’ protest action by executing court walkouts

Criminal barristers are voting on whether to drastically escalate their ‘no returns’ protest action by executing court walkouts.

The option, which could force the criminal courts to stop proceedings taking place before the end of June, is one of three choices put before practitioners this week in a second Criminal Bar Association (CBA) ballot. The others are refusing to take on any new cases under the advocates graduated fee scheme as well as refusing returns, or ending the protest.

The proposed ‘days of action’ walkouts would escalate, taking place on 27- 28 June in the first week, 4-6 July in the second week, 11-14 July in the third week, 18-22 July in the fourth week and the whole of the week commencing 25 July.

The barristers would refuse to work again for the whole week commencing 1 August, then they would down tools for whole weeks at a time on alternating weeks ‘with no end date… subject to the response from government’.

The ballot will close at midnight on 19 June.

The ’no returns’ protest has been ongoing since April, over low legal aid fees for defence barristers. Last week, the CBA held consultations with members by Zoom to gauge their views. CBA chair Jo Sidhu QC said ‘the overwhelming feedback was… there should be a swift and substantial escalation in the action we are taking’.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has proposed a 15% increase, the minimum recommended by Sir Christopher Bellamy’s criminal legal aid review, to be introduced in October. The CBA say members would not benefit from the increase until at least late 2023. It is asking for a 25% increase and wants the government to ‘at least’ implement the minimum 15% increase with immediate effect.

Sidhu said a quarter of criminal barristers have left their practice in the past five years and 567 trials were postponed last year for want of an available prosecution or defence barrister.

Issue: 7983 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , 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