header-logo header-logo

06 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Courts empty for legal aid action

Criminal lawyers desert courts in protest over legal aid cuts

Criminal barristers and solicitors massed outside criminal courts across England and Wales today in a half-day of action against legal aid cuts—the Bar’s first walkout in its history.

Lawyers deserted Crown and Magistrates’ courts in droves, with many trials listed for the morning re-scheduled ahead of the protest.

The campaigners, many sporting full court attire of wigs and gowns, are calling for a re-think of Ministry of Justice (MoJ) plans to cut £220m a year from the criminal legal aid budget. They argue that the cuts will be unsustainable, and will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice.

Barristers and solicitors face a cut of about 17.5%—30% in their fees if the plans go ahead, while solicitors will be paid the same amount if their client pleads guilty or not, raising a conflict of interest.

Earnings at the criminal Bar vary widely, with many making less than £25,000.

James Welch, Liberty’s legal director, says the proposals “put the fairness of our criminal justice system in serious jeopardy”. 

In contrast with the robust action on display this week, the Law Society has controversially pursued a policy of engagement with the MoJ over legal aid, leading to it losing a vote of no confidence in its leadership 228 votes to 213 shortly before Christmas.

James Parry, partner at Liverpool firm Parry Welch Lacey, who led the campaign for the vote, says proposed fee cuts will make the majority of criminal defence work unviable, and two-thirds of criminal law firms could go out of business. Fees are to be cut by 17.5%, although Parry says the cuts will be worse in reality as there will be a flat fee of £321 for magistrates’ court trials.

However, Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, defended its tactics, saying non-engagement “did not work”.

Issue: 7589 / Categories: Legal News
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