Criminal defence barristers to escalate strike action after government defeats fees vote

The government has defeated an opposition attempt to reverse reforms to the way that criminal defence barristers are paid for legal aid work, with barristers vowing to step up their strike action in response.

Over 100 barristers’ chambers are now refusing publicly funded criminal cases because the Advocates Graduated Fee Scheme (AGFS) effectively forces barristers to work unpaid while analysing evidence and preparing for trial – in many cases barristers’ fees for legal aid cases fail to even meet their travel costs to attend the hearing.

As Legal Futures reports, the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has now advised its members to escalate their strike action by refusing to hand over cases when diaries clash, after a Labour motion to annul the AGFS legislation was defeated by 300 votes to 252 in the House of Commons.

Angela Rafferty, chair of the CBA, said: “We now consider it is necessary to escalate this action in order to show that we really have reached breaking point... We still seek a resolution and will actively take part in all efforts to bring this situation to an end. However, there must be a recognition that investment is required in the AGFS and the criminal justice system.”

During the Commons debate, Richard Burgon, the shadow lord chancellor, warned that the scheme could have a detrimental impact on justice. He said: “The scheme fails to recognise the growing work required to deal with the increasing amount of evidential and unused material. Advocates are expected to consider that material without specific payments, however much additional material is served. That is especially worrying, given the fact that a series of trials, including rape trials, have recently collapsed because of failings in the disclosure of evidence.”

Justice minister Lucy Frazer defended the AGFS on behalf of the government. She said: “This scheme was put together in close co-operation with the Bar leadership. Secondly, the scheme does not bring in a cut; at the very least, it is cost neutral, but it is more likely to give rise to an increase in expenditure, given that built into the calculations is a £9m risk of such an increase. Thirdly, the scheme is more advantageous to the Bar overall than the one it replaces, particularly for those at the junior end.”

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve also came to the government’s defence, saying: “The scheme was wanted by the Bar and it is clearly an improvement on the previous system. Granted there are very great difficulties with funds, but it seems entirely reasonable for the government to proceed with it.”