*/
Proposals to ensure independent barristers remain at the heart of an efficient criminal justice system, have stressed the need to maintain the highest advocacy standards in the Crown court and reform entry into the profession.
The report, Criminal Justice, Advocacy and the Bar, was the work of the Bar Council’s Criminal Justice Reform Group led by former Senior Circuit Judge His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin QC.
Its 65 recommendations cover charging and the pre-trial process, better case management, limiting rights of audience and restructuring the training given to aspiring barristers.
Legal executives, it said, should not have rights of audience in the Crown court. If they retain their current limited rights, clients should be advised of their right to use a solicitor or barrister and notified of the different qualifications.
Where in-house advocates are instructed, the report stated that solicitors should be required to advise clients in writing of the reasons for doing so and to inform them of their right to instruct advocates independent of their firm.
It suggested there should be no category of “plea only” advocates, whether solicitors or barristers, fearing it is a move towards “dumbing down” within the profession.
In addition, all those practising as advocates should complete training and apprenticeship to the equivalent standard of the Bar.
Mindful of the plight of those seeking to enter the profession and the need to secure the future of the junior Bar, the report branded the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) “expensive” and “not highly regarded”.
It expressed concern that commercial providers, which charge up to £17,980 for the course, “are using the system to make money from people with no real prospect of pupillage”.
Around 1,800 students undertake the BPTC each year chasing approximately 400 pupillages.
The report recommended raising the standard of entry and replacing the “not fit for purpose” BCAT with a new admission test. It called for greater transparency to give students a better understanding of their chances of success, suggesting that providers publish pupillage statistics and their own selection criteria.
Echoing recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of Efficiencies in Criminal Proceedings, the report called for better charging decisions, case ownership, investment in digital working, changes to case allocation and listing, and the abolition of the warned list.
On trial management it proposed greater use of pre-recorded evidence, shorter prosecution opening speeches and the introduction of a defence opening speech.
In conclusion, it said: “As to the future of the Bar, no one can pretend that there is some magic formula to hand; but we believe there is a very powerful case for a strong independent criminal Bar.”
Meanwhile, a report from HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate found that advocacy standards within the organisation had taken a “backwards step” over the past three years.
Sir Michael Fuller’s report found that CPS barristers lacked “presence, self-confidence and flair” in Crown court trials and were in danger of “losing” the jury because of the way they presented cases.
Though good news for the independent Bar, the report warned that the CPS’s high use of outside counsel posed a “real threat to in-house prosecutors’ courtroom skills”.
The CPS, which has undergone 25% budget cuts, strongly disputed the criticism and argued that conviction rates had been maintained.
The report, Criminal Justice, Advocacy and the Bar, was the work of the Bar Council’s Criminal Justice Reform Group led by former Senior Circuit Judge His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin QC.
Its 65 recommendations cover charging and the pre-trial process, better case management, limiting rights of audience and restructuring the training given to aspiring barristers.
Legal executives, it said, should not have rights of audience in the Crown court. If they retain their current limited rights, clients should be advised of their right to use a solicitor or barrister and notified of the different qualifications.
Where in-house advocates are instructed, the report stated that solicitors should be required to advise clients in writing of the reasons for doing so and to inform them of their right to instruct advocates independent of their firm.
It suggested there should be no category of “plea only” advocates, whether solicitors or barristers, fearing it is a move towards “dumbing down” within the profession.
In addition, all those practising as advocates should complete training and apprenticeship to the equivalent standard of the Bar.
Mindful of the plight of those seeking to enter the profession and the need to secure the future of the junior Bar, the report branded the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) “expensive” and “not highly regarded”.
It expressed concern that commercial providers, which charge up to £17,980 for the course, “are using the system to make money from people with no real prospect of pupillage”.
Around 1,800 students undertake the BPTC each year chasing approximately 400 pupillages.
The report recommended raising the standard of entry and replacing the “not fit for purpose” BCAT with a new admission test. It called for greater transparency to give students a better understanding of their chances of success, suggesting that providers publish pupillage statistics and their own selection criteria.
Echoing recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of Efficiencies in Criminal Proceedings, the report called for better charging decisions, case ownership, investment in digital working, changes to case allocation and listing, and the abolition of the warned list.
On trial management it proposed greater use of pre-recorded evidence, shorter prosecution opening speeches and the introduction of a defence opening speech.
In conclusion, it said: “As to the future of the Bar, no one can pretend that there is some magic formula to hand; but we believe there is a very powerful case for a strong independent criminal Bar.”
Meanwhile, a report from HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate found that advocacy standards within the organisation had taken a “backwards step” over the past three years.
Sir Michael Fuller’s report found that CPS barristers lacked “presence, self-confidence and flair” in Crown court trials and were in danger of “losing” the jury because of the way they presented cases.
Though good news for the independent Bar, the report warned that the CPS’s high use of outside counsel posed a “real threat to in-house prosecutors’ courtroom skills”.
The CPS, which has undergone 25% budget cuts, strongly disputed the criticism and argued that conviction rates had been maintained.
Proposals to ensure independent barristers remain at the heart of an efficient criminal justice system, have stressed the need to maintain the highest advocacy standards in the Crown court and reform entry into the profession.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
