header-logo header-logo

30 March 2020
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession , Covid-19
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: CPS offers upfront fees

Criminal barristers are to be paid an upfront fee of £500 by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as part of interim measures to tide them over during the COVID-19 crisis

CPS chief executive officer Rebecca Lawrence confirmed the payment as well as other temporary adjustments to CPS fee schemes this week, in a letter to Criminal Bar Association chair Caroline Goodwin QC.

Payment is ‘likely to occur in early May’, Lawrence said. The £500 will be deductible against the main hearing fee payable at the conclusion of the case. It will be payable to the instructed advocate in any case affected by the pandemic restrictions, which has been previously adjourned for trial and has yet to have a main hearing. 

If the advocate returns the brief to another advocate then the full main fee will be paid to the one originally instructed, and reconciliation ‘will take place on a counsel-to-counsel basis’.       

Lawrence also confirmed the CPS would pay for work done prior to the conclusion of a case where delays to proceedings are encountered, ‘maintain timely payments’ for any work done during the affected period, and take account of ongoing operational challenges ‘caused by remote working and possible reductions in workforce’.

Goodwin said: ‘This is unprecedented and will go a long way to helping the junior bar in the coming months as we all battle with COVID-19.

‘We are extremely appreciative of the time that has gone in to ensure that faster payments can be made and we recognise that this is an incredibly supportive and much need gesture to ensure the longevity of the bar at this time.’

Issue: 7881 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Profession , Covid-19
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