header-logo header-logo

02 March 2022
Issue: 7969 / Categories: Legal News , In Court , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Criminal Bar could refuse returns from next month

Barristers to vote on no returns policy

Ballot papers have been issued to criminal barristers, asking them to vote on a ‘no returns’ policy from 11 April.

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) set out the two options for its members this week. ‘Returns’ are where another barrister takes over the case if there’s a diary clash. The ballot ends at one minute to midnight on 11 March.

Option A is to refuse all return work under the advocates graduated fee scheme (AGFS) from 11 April, unless the government agrees to: a 25% per annum increase in remuneration under the AGFS; pay for written work as recommended by the Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid (CLAR); create an effective pay review body; expedite the timetable for consultation on the CLAR recommendations; pay a second brief fee payment for s 28 YJCE hearings; and index link AGFS payments.

Option B is to wait for the government’s response on CLAR in the week of 14 March, followed by a consultation until end of June 2022, and any relevant statutory instruments being implemented by end of September.

The CLAR recommended an increase of at least 15% in fees.

A survey of CBA members in January found 94% in favour of action if the government did not set out its proposals to expedite reform by 14 February. However, this was ‘simply ignored’ by the government.

Jo Sidhu QC, CBA chair, said: ‘The overall timetable for the reform of criminal legal aid funding set by government takes us to October 2022 with no prospect of an increase in fees until 2024.

‘Neither criminal barristers nor criminal solicitors can afford to wait that long. We have already paid a heavy price in attrition from our ranks for the inexcusable failure to deal post-haste with the impact of diminishing real incomes, and we are both facing decimation if critical intervention is not forthcoming.’
Issue: 7969 / Categories: Legal News , In Court , 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