*/
The publicly funded Bar is facing an “annus horribilis”, with yet more proposed cuts – this time to criminal defence fees, writes Desmond Browne QC
Once upon a time nothing happened in the Long Vacation. No longer. At 9am on Thursday, 20 August the phone rang in High Holborn and it was the Legal Aid Minister on the line. His bombshell news was of yet another Consultation Paper from the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”). The Paper which arrived that afternoon bore the title “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms”. This deceptive euphemism disguised the fact that the contents were no more than a catalogue of proposed cuts – weeks before the Prime Minister first used the C-word in his speech to the TUC at Blackpool. Of course, euphemism becomes necessary, when cuts of 23% in defence fees are proposed. You then have to call them “efficiency savings”, when in truth they are the very reverse. They will damage efficiency and quality advocacy by driving experienced practitioners out of the work.
Both we, and the MoJ, know that has already happened in family law. It was conclusively demonstrated by the recent King’s College, London survey for the FLBA. By mid-September the LSC had still not decided what cuts to impose in family fees, but in July the Commons Justice Committee warned that if the scheme was implemented as proposed, there was a serious risk of an exodus of experienced practitioners from publicly funded family law. It will be no different with criminal work.
Nothing which has happened so far in what is proving to be an “annus horribilis” for the publicly funded Bar has caused anything like the postbag of outrage reaching me about these cuts. Hence only one topic in my column this month. The rage is fully justified, when one reads Lord Bach’s stated belief that his proposed cuts are “policy changes, which are necessary, irrespective of economic circumstances”. In seeking to lower defence fees to the level of those paid by the CPS, the government is, quite simply, tearing up the Carter bargain. Their reasons turn logic on its head.
Take, for example, their reliance on the CBA’s evidence to the Justice Committee in October 2008 that it was “concerned at the marked discrepancy between the fees paid to prosecution advocates and defence advocates in the Crown Court”. The MoJ knows perfectly well that this was an argument for removing the anomalous differential by raising prosecution fees (which were not addressed by Carter) to the level of RAGFS fees. Indeed, prolonged negotiations with the CPS had been taking place to achieve that very objective. Meantime, practitioners continued to accept prosecution work in the belief that an increase in paltry fees (particularly for sex cases) was close at hand. Many are now re-considering.
It is evidence of how ill thought out are these proposals that the LSC seems to have been as much surprised as the professions. On 11 September they announced that tendering for the 2010 Criminal Contract due to begin in October has been deferred for “at least two months”. Also deferred was the start of the BVT pilot in Bristol and Manchester for police station and magistrates’ court work. To their credit, the LSC have acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to start the tendering process until the rates for advocacy are known.
It’s an ill wind …
Desmond Browne QC is Bar Chairman
Once upon a time nothing happened in the Long Vacation. No longer. At 9am on Thursday, 20 August the phone rang in High Holborn and it was the Legal Aid Minister on the line. His bombshell news was of yet another Consultation Paper from the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”). The Paper which arrived that afternoon bore the title “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms”. This deceptive euphemism disguised the fact that the contents were no more than a catalogue of proposed cuts – weeks before the Prime Minister first used the C-word in his speech to the TUC at Blackpool. Of course, euphemism becomes necessary, when cuts of 23% in defence fees are proposed. You then have to call them “efficiency savings”, when in truth they are the very reverse. They will damage efficiency and quality advocacy by driving experienced practitioners out of the work.
Both we, and the MoJ, know that has already happened in family law. It was conclusively demonstrated by the recent King’s College, London survey for the FLBA. By mid-September the LSC had still not decided what cuts to impose in family fees, but in July the Commons Justice Committee warned that if the scheme was implemented as proposed, there was a serious risk of an exodus of experienced practitioners from publicly funded family law. It will be no different with criminal work.
Nothing which has happened so far in what is proving to be an “annus horribilis” for the publicly funded Bar has caused anything like the postbag of outrage reaching me about these cuts. Hence only one topic in my column this month. The rage is fully justified, when one reads Lord Bach’s stated belief that his proposed cuts are “policy changes, which are necessary, irrespective of economic circumstances”. In seeking to lower defence fees to the level of those paid by the CPS, the government is, quite simply, tearing up the Carter bargain. Their reasons turn logic on its head.
Take, for example, their reliance on the CBA’s evidence to the Justice Committee in October 2008 that it was “concerned at the marked discrepancy between the fees paid to prosecution advocates and defence advocates in the Crown Court”. The MoJ knows perfectly well that this was an argument for removing the anomalous differential by raising prosecution fees (which were not addressed by Carter) to the level of RAGFS fees. Indeed, prolonged negotiations with the CPS had been taking place to achieve that very objective. Meantime, practitioners continued to accept prosecution work in the belief that an increase in paltry fees (particularly for sex cases) was close at hand. Many are now re-considering.
It is evidence of how ill thought out are these proposals that the LSC seems to have been as much surprised as the professions. On 11 September they announced that tendering for the 2010 Criminal Contract due to begin in October has been deferred for “at least two months”. Also deferred was the start of the BVT pilot in Bristol and Manchester for police station and magistrates’ court work. To their credit, the LSC have acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to start the tendering process until the rates for advocacy are known.
It’s an ill wind …
Desmond Browne QC is Bar Chairman
The publicly funded Bar is facing an “annus horribilis”, with yet more proposed cuts – this time to criminal defence fees, writes Desmond Browne QC
Efforts continue on gender equality, support for the Bar, meaningful reform for the sector and advocating for the rule of law
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Beatson Cancer Charity in Glasgow as part of its Giving Back campaign
Girls Human Rights Festival 2025: a global gathering for change
Exclusive Q&A with Henry Dannell
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
Patrick Green KC talks about the landmark Post Office Group litigation and his driving principles for life and practice. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Desiree Artesi meets Malcolm Bishop KC, the Lord Chief Justice of Tonga, who talks about his new role in the South Pacific and reflects on his career
Sir Nicholas Mostyn, former High Court judge, on starting a hit podcast with fellow ‘Parkies’ after the shock of his diagnosis
Once you submit your silk application, what happens next? Sir Paul Morgan explains each stage of the process and reflects on his experience as a member of the KC Selection Panel