Open Letter To Chris Henley QC, Chair of The CBA
Open Letter To Chris Henley QC, Chair of The CBA
We write to you and the CBA executive as junior Criminal barristers of 0-12
years’ call, in the wake of the government’s consultation response to Amending
the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS 11), published on 10 December
2018.
We recognise the unenviable task the CBA executive faces in negotiating with the
MoJ, and do not write in an effort to sow discord. However, what follows is an
earnest and unapologetic attempt to convey to you and the CBA leadership the
strength and depth of our feeling against AGFS 11, even as amended.
It would be wrong to think that we at the (junior) junior Bar are not equally
concerned with the destruction of PPE as those more senior. Its loss in paper-
heavy cases represents the dismantling of our future. Moreover, when senior
members inevitably begin to choose their cases more shrewdly, those of us lower
down will face the unenviable choice of taking on cases we fear are too complex
for our call or having gaps in our diaries. We are seeing many examples of this
happening already.
The current structure of payment, whereby guilty plea fees and cracked trial fees
do not reflect the work involved in preparing for guilty pleas and ineffective trials
(especially in cases that run to several thousand pages and beyond), is also
creating a real risk to the quality of representation. The lack of adequate
remuneration for work done out of court is greatly exacerbated (especially in the
case of junior juniors) by the ubiquitous use of warned lists, with their in-built
likelihood that counsel who prepares the case will not in fact do the trial
(notwithstanding advices on evidence, conferences, legal arguments, defence
statements, etc.). This has already begun to erode that quality of representation,
with individuals understandably finding it impossible to justify the preparation
time previously allocated to such cases, and to “go the extra mile”, as was
previously routine.
The fees report due in 2020 will be redundant by the time it is published. There
will either have been the dramatic change in funding that is needed by then or
many of us will already have left the profession. We are haemorrhaging talent.
The idea that we don’t yet have a clear enough picture of the effect that AGFS 11
is having, and will continue to have, is laughable. Whether the government likes
it or not, the experiences of individual barristers are telling, and taken together
they start to add up to irrefutable evidence.
Junior juniors are voting with their feet. They are either ceasing to conduct Legal
Aid work (whether by moving into other areas of practice or going on long-term
secondment) or they are leaving the self-employed Bar altogether.
We expect the MoJ to continue to listen and engage with the profession now, not
in 2020. What we want is a coherent and sustainable system of remuneration for
work done. This can and must be achieved without delay, through further
negotiation. Plainly, we can only speak on behalf of those who have signed this
letter, but for our part, we are in favour of direct action in the New Year, if needed
to bring the MoJ back to the table. We acknowledge this will require careful
planning and some creativity, with every effort made to protect those who would
be financially unable to participate in, for example, a return to ‘no returns’. We
envisage discussions to that end early in the New Year and are cognisant of the
need to prompt a meaningful response from government before March (n.b.
Brexit).
At the juniors’ meeting on 24th November 2018 the mood was plainly, and
strongly, in favour of further industrial action. It may be that the “additional”
funding for AGFS11 has placated all of those individuals, and those whose views
they conveyed to the meeting. All we ask is that the CBA does not simply assume
that this is the case. Certainly, in respect of those who have signed this letter, it is
not.
21 December 2018
Sent on behalf of: