Noticeboard

Chairman's Report - September 2009

 

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2009

 

I would like to express my warmest thanks to Peter Lodder QC for the dedication he displayed during his year in office. Peter was determined to protect our members’ interests and was unafraid to express himself in forthright language from time to time. After 2 years of service in the CBA cause, nobody could have blamed Peter for returning to practice but as many of you will know, he has recently announced his candidacy for the Vice Chairmanship of the Bar. I admire Peter’s capacity for punishment; rather as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages, it seems like a triumph of hope over experience.

I would also like to express my thanks to last years’ committee for their contribution, without which the job of the officers would have been considerably more difficult.

I am delighted to have as my Vice Chair this year Christopher Kinch QC who served the CBA with such distinction as its Director of Education. I will greatly benefit from his wise counsel and experience and I feel sure that we have a strong team this year that will do its best for the criminal Bar

A number of co-optees from last year are standing down and there will be some fresh faces on the committee. I would like to welcome Abbas Lakka QC, Paul Keleher QC, James Richardson, Nathaniel Rudolph and Dermot Keating.

Later in this report, I shall be setting out some of the changes I have introduced to this years’ committee, which I hope will help it work more efficiently by taking up less of its members’ time and allowing them to focus on the most important issues that we confront.

 

Ministry of Justice Paper on Legal Aid

Foremost among those issues and front page news at the moment in every sense is the latest onslaught on our profession by the Ministry of Justice, announced in its consultation paper entitled “Legal Aid: Funding Reforms” reforms, of course, meaning cuts. We regard these proposals as a gross breach of faith by the government.   Two years ago, an agreement was reached to increase the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme rates that had been static for the previous decade despite inflation eroding their real value. Any resulting disparity with the fees paid by the CPS was to be addressed by increasing the latter. Many of you have continued to prosecute at fees far below what you are worth because you believed that would happen. After 2 years of fruitless negotiations with the CPS, the government turns the facts on its head and rewards our forbearance by dragging fees back down to unacceptable levels.

My letter to The Times on this topic was published on the 4^th September and a copy of it is on the website. We have set up a powerful working group under the Chair of Andrew Hall QC. The group has already produced its draft response and an action plan. All our members by now will have received a letter from me setting out our proposed course of action and a letter from Andrew Hall and myself setting out in some detail the ways in which all of our members can contribute to this fight.

As we have pointed out from the moment this consultation paper landed in our laps, this is not just or even a fight about money, it is a fight about holding a government to its word, about attracting and retaining young barristers from diverse backgrounds to the criminal Bar and ultimately about the quality of the criminal justice system.

BSB Paper on Structure of Self-Employed Practice

You don’t need me to remind you of the pain the publicly funded bar has been through the last 18 months, losing work to HCAs and employed CPS advocates. Many suggestions have been mooted to address these issues and they are being actively considered. The Bar Council has recently formed a Task Force to examine various options, and one idea that has gathered momentum is what is commonly referred to as a procurement company: chambers incorporates a separate limited company that can block contract for the provision of advocacy services, passing work to individual counsel in much the same way as chambers does at present.

Such a company would have greater freedom of action in the market place than a set of chambers. It could contract with any users of advocacy services, such as a firm of solicitors, a group or consortium of solicitors or even the LSC itself. Early discussions with the LSC indicate it is more than willing to contract with barristers in this way.

Simon Mayo QC chaired our group that responded to this recent BSB paper on the Structure of Self-Employed Practice. Somewhat tucked away in paragraph 11 of the BSB paper was a reference to Special Purpose Vehicles. A procurement company is one such vehicle. These vehicles raise many practical issues, including regulatory ones that might require rule changes by the BSB. We understand that the BSB will be deciding on the necessary rule changes in November.

The Bar Council Task Force, of which I am a member, has this week decided an action plan that includes the following:

• The BSB has agreed with the Bar Council to extend their consultation closing date to 9 October to give us more time to respond;
• A letter will be sent by the Bar Council to barristers in the next 7 days, drawing particular attention to paragraph 11 of this current BSB consultation and the option of a procurement company;
• The Bar Council will meet with the BSB to discuss in more detail the procurement vehicle option, which will help the BSB Board make a more informed decision in November.
• Discussions to continue with the LSC about the possibility of contracting direct with the LSC for work

I will of course keep you fully informed of developments.

 

VHCCs

The Bar Council sub group on the VHCC Steering Group was due to deliver its latest draft scheme to the LSC on Friday 4^th September, in accordance with the timetable laid down by the LSC to enable it to issue its consultation paper in October. The Ministry of Justice’s latest initiative brought the sub-group to within an inch of suspending all negotiations with the LSC, on the basis that the government seems incapable of keeping its word and there was little point in us negotiating a scheme only for the government to renege on it two years down the line. In the event, because this is an honorable profession, we submitted the scheme, under a very strongly worded letter from Desmond Browne QC and myself, making it plain how angry and betrayed we felt at this latest development.

The scheme was discussed at the VHCC Steering Group meeting on Monday 14^th September and I am pleased to report that the general reception from both the Law Society the MOJ and the LSC was broadly favorable. The scheme itself is a graduated fee scheme, similar in its concepts to the AGFS but obviously different in its details as it has to cope with a wider range of cases. However, the real difficulty lies in costing it: despite an enormous effort by the Criminal Bar Association and the sub-group, we were only able to obtain from practitioners 24 useable cases to test the scheme. We are actively exploring ways to increase the database but time is short as the LSC has to complete its consultation paper this month in time for it to be issued in October. We expect you will have the chance to see the scheme in detail and comment upon it at that time. The Bar’s scheme will not be the only one on offer.

At the same time, we have been negotiating with the LSC over the new VHCC contract. We have the benefit of the advice of a contract law specialist and we are confident the final contract will be a vast improvement over the 2008 model, with all the most objectionable provisions removed.

All parties are anxious to have a new scheme in place by July 2010 when the extension to the existing VHCC scheme will lapse but we have offered the Ministry of Justice and LSC no guarantee that their final offering will be to the Bar’s liking.

Abbas Lakka QC has been very involved in creating this latest scheme and I am very grateful to him, Ra Healey and Neil Hawes for all their hard work. The Bar Council team will now be led by Abbas. Alex Cameron QC and Nathaniel Rudolf have kindly agreed to join the team.

CPS

As you know, in the aftermath of the colourful language used by Desmond Brown QC and Peter Lodder QC following the publication of the CPS Inspectors’ Report, the Director of Public Proescutions suspended the “Chatham House” meetings until further notice. This was unfortunate but it now seems that it will be a temporary setback. I write this report ahead of next week’s committee meeting when the Director is due to attend and at which we will have the opportunity to canvas many of issues which concern our members who prosecute. 

I have no doubt that this will prove to be an interesting occasion for all concerned. I recognise that from time to time that the interests of the CBA and the CPS will diverge and we must have the right to express our views forthrightly but I hope the discourse will not lead to a breakdown in communication.

There are a number of serious issues that remain unresolved and that we must address in the coming months. I am confident that Chris Kinch QC will help us make progress.

HCAs

We are still concerned about the encroachment of HCAs into the Crown Court and I continue to receive reports of solicitors taking more and more advocacy in house. However, the debate must move on from the rather acrimonious terms of the last 18 months where on occasion each side has been perhaps rather too swift to criticise the other. This is, in the end, about standards of advocacy and the Bar has no reason to fear on that count. Whatever the economic considerations that have caused the increase in HCAs, the over-riding concern must be that they attain the same high standards of advocacy and integrity as the self-employed Bar, because ultimately it is victims, defendants and the criminal justice system that suffer through inadequate or incompetent representation. The Bar has never feared competition so long as it is fair and the same standards are applied to all.

 

CBA Symposium “Fair Prosecution - Fearless Defence”

This Symposium organised by Jeremy Dein QC and his Education Committee was held on 17^th September. There was an all-star line up of panelists including the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Recorder of Redbridge, HHJ Radford; Joel Bennathan QC of Tooks Chambers; Shami Chakrabarti the Director of Liberty; and Raymond Shaw, the President of the LCCSA. This was an entertaining and informative evening with a high level of contributions from the distinguished speakers and some very pointed questions from the floor. Events such as these demonstrate that the CBA is committed to the very highest standards of advocacy in both prosecuting and defending and takes seriously its role in promoting these values, a task made so much harder by a government whose every move seems to be heading in the opposite direction. I know this event took a great deal of hard work by Jeremy Dein QC and his committee and I want to extend my thanks to him, Aisling Byrnes, Monica Stevenson, Toyin Salako and Natasha Tahta for all their efforts in making it such a successful evening.

 

Kalisher Lecture

We are delighted that this year the flagship lecture of the CBA’s Winter Lecture series at the Old Bailey is to be given by Lord Judge the Lord Chief Justice. The topic is “Developments in Crown Court Advocacy” and since he will no doubt be touching upon the stimulating issue of HCAs, we have taken the unusual step this year of asking for a number of solicitors representatives to join us, including Robert Heslett and Ian Kelcey from the Law Societ, Ray Shaw and Paul Harris from the LCCSA and Joy Merriam, the President of the CLSA. The Lecture is held at the Old Bailey Bar Mess when the Kalisher Scholarship prizes are also announced. Details have already been e-mailed and posters will shortly be appearing in all the Crown Courts. I am confident there will be a very good turnout for this important lecture.

 

Bar Conference

The Bar Conference this year will be held at the Royal Lancaster Hotel on the 7^th November, and the title is “Access to Justice – Justice For All” The CBA has organised a workshop entitled “Justice for Witnesses And Victims of Crime” which will be moderated by Jeremy Dein QC and has amongst its speakers Professor Jennifer Zedalis Director of Trial Practice at the University of Florida College of Law; Sara Payne campaigner for Victims Rights; Mark Ellison QC former First Senior Treasury Counsel and a certain Paul Mendelle. It promises to be a lively debate with various different viewpoints expressed. Please do attend, it’s the bar’s flagship event and it will be valuable and interesting. Oh, and it carries 6 CPD points.

The Bar Scholarship Fund provides places for up to 50 pupils at a subsidized cost of £25 each. As at the 15^th September, there were still 45 places available on a first come first served basis.

 

Young Bar Conference

The Young Bar Conference is being held at the Hotel Russell on Saturday 3^rd October. There is a fascinating programme including an advocacy master class and workshops dealing with a range of subjects from extradition to ethics, not to mention first class refreshments and 5 CPD points, all of which makes it a very worthwhile event indeed and one we hope which will be well supported.

 

Database of Members and Direct Debits

Our Treasurer, Jonathan Mann is currently updating the database of members and is in the process of setting up a direct debit system with our bankers. In future, it will be much easier for us to collect the membership fees, I know how keen you must all be to see us deplete your bank accounts.

 

Re-organising the Committee

I am conscious that Committee Membership is both a pleasure and a burden and I am anxious that committee meetings should use as little of our time as possible. I have thus agreed with the other officers that the committee is to be slightly re-organised this year by creating specific areas of responsibility headed by a single committee member exactly as we do with Education and International . We have established the following posts with the names in brackets of those who have agreed to head them up this year;

Equalities and Diversities: Kim Hollis QC

CPS Liaison: Christopher Kinch QC

International: Amanda Pinto QC

Fees: Abbas Lakka QC

Website: Assistant Secretary currently Lesley Bates

CBQ: John Cooper

Circuit Liaison: Ed Vickers

Parliamentary/ Law Reform: James Richardson

I have asked all of the Portfolio Holders to prepare reports in advance of each monthly committee meeting which will be circulated some days before the meeting. In this way, those of you that cannot attend the meetings will have advance warning of the matters to be discussed and an opportunity to e-mail any points you may wish to make. I do not propose to read out at the committee meetings either the Chairman’s Report or any other reports and this way I hope that the committee meetings will be able to deal with matters more expeditiously. 

 

Bar Council Elections

Nominations for the Bar Counsel elections must be delivered to the Bar Council offices between the 7^th and 21^st October 2009. There is 1 vacancy amongst Queens Counsel, 7 vacancies amongst Junior Counsel over 7 years’ call and 4 vacancies amongst Junior Counsel under 7 years call. As you know, the CBA supports candidates from the Criminal Bar and I hope that you will ensure that there are criminal practitioners ready and able to stand in the elections.

Practising Certificates

The BSB has just issued a note on the impact of the LSA 07 on the issue of practicing certificates. From January 2010, anyone who does not have a practicing certificate will be committing a criminal offence. If you need more details, please contact Andy Hill at the Bar Council. It is vital that all practitioners are aware of this important change.

 

Paul Mendelle QC

18 September 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report - July 2009

 

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT – July 2009

 

BVT

 

It is a pleasure to start with some better news. Yesterday the LSC announced that it will not introduce Best Value Tendering before a full evaluation has been undertaken. We are not out of the woods yet, but the announcement indicates there will be no implementation before 2013. This puts it back to a time after the next general election. It is a testament to the considerable efforts of our strong BVT team led by Desmond Browne QC, our very own Paul Mendelle QC and a number of members of this Committee. I am extremely grateful to all of you. It may also show that petitioning on the Number 10 website is worthwhile!

 

 

CPS

 

Pressure for the detail behind their published accounts and the threat of a Freedom of Information Act application provoked a press release on the part of the CPS publishing detail of an alleged £11.5 million saving in the last year by the use of in-house advocates. Even on a cursory reading it was clear that the accounts were nonsensical, failing to reflect significant “fixed” costs. We have engaged Europe Economics to provide an analysis which would have been published last week but was postponed so as not to be overshadowed by BVT and Family Fees. The analysis is a searing critique of what can best be described as ‘Mickey Mouse’ accountancy. A press release will be made soon.

 

On 20^th July I attended the reception to launch the CPS Inspectorate report on advocacy in the CPS. The report contains mixed messages, with some criticism of the self-employed bar and it gives some comfort to the CPS in adopting their economic argument without demur. However it found significantly higher standards of trial advocacy at the Bar. There are other themes within it which reflect what we have been saying for some time (in particular to the Justice Select Committee): that in the pursuit of quantity it has lost sight of quality. In particular it finds that a watershed has been reached so that consolidation is now appropriate. There is specific reference to the more collaborative and less combative relationship with the self employed Bar.

 

I hope that the combination of our analysis of the economic argument and the observations of this report will cause the CPS to realise that there is established merit in what we have been saying and I look forward to some real progress in our Chatham House discussions. We have been arguing for some time that there must be a vertical structure to provide opportunities for the most junior tenants to develop prosecution practices so as to become the senior prosecutors of the future. I think this message may be getting through.

 

HCAs

 

Meetings of the PFA group have continued. All options are being considered – even some that formerly were unthinkable. It is highly likely that in the longer term changes to the codes of conduct will be necessary in order to accommodate new forms of business structure. But we cannot afford to overlook the shorter term. There is a very real concern that whilst the protracted procedure for permission under the Legal Services Act rumbles on irreparable damage may be done to all levels of the independent Bar. Short term efforts are focussed upon new styles of practice which do not require rule change. The formulation of these proposals remains work in progress but they turn upon the possibility of providing additional services to firms of solicitors and relieving some of the pressure which is driving them towards recruiting in-house advocates. Careful formulation of any proposal is essential so as to avoid the necessity of time consuming rule change. Wide consultation will follow.

 

In order to tackle the longer term and important issue of the future form of the bar a task force has been set up under the joint chairmanship of Nicholas Green QC and me. Again wide consultation will be a touch stone. I repeat my previous requests that you all engage in this critical debate.

 

VHCC

 

I understand that enough material has now been gathered for there to be sufficient data base for proper analysis. Particular thanks again to Paul Mendelle QC and his team – some of whom rang the chambers of each individual member of the bar who was on the list in order to encourage/cajole a response.

 

 

OTHER EVENTS

 

On 22^nd June I met Henry Bellingham MP (shadow justice minister) with Desmond Browne QC and Lucy Theis QC. There is some comfort in the Conservative party plans for Legal Aid and there is a philosophical dislike of contracting in advocates (rather than outsourcing) by the CPS. He was careful not to make any promises but is keen to meet again

 

On 25^th June I attended and spoke at a meeting of the North East Circuit and then dined with them afterwards at Grand Court in the Leeds Club. On 17^th July I was a guest at the Western Circuit Grand Night in Winchester College. Both were splendid evenings with great entertainment, local ritual and excellent examples of the Bar at its best. On home turf, on 26^th June, I was a guest at the South Eastern Circuit annual dinner which was equally grand. It is particularly satisfying to have visited every one of the circuits over the past 9 months and to have been so generously and warmly received.

 

And there was a further Chatham House meeting with the CPS on 7^th July at which the early skirmish lines over the accounts were set out.

 

On the 10^th July Paul Mendelle QC and I attended a meeting with MoJ & LSC and other “stakeholders”. This was a thinly disguised attempt to gain advice on where and how deeply to further cut the Legal Aid budget. They had little help for their purpose but met with an almost universal appeal to recognise that cutting fees simply reduces quality and increases cost in other areas of the budget. I regret to report that they appeared to take little notice.

 

Tomorrow we will try again, when Paul and myself will join Desmond Browne QC and Nick Green QC in an investigative meeting with Sir Bill Callaghan and others as to future opportunities for the bar in terms of direct contracting with the LSC independently of solicitors.

 

On 16^th July we met the Lord Chief Justice & Thomas LJ. Following our earlier discussions on the topic Paul and I attended with Raymond Shaw the President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Chris Clark representing the Chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society. There is strong interest on the part of the senior judiciary to ensure high standards of quality in advocacy and this was touched upon, with Thomas LJ to take forward QAA issues. But it was also an opportunity to bring the LCJ up to date on issues such as BVT and was a good demonstration of how we can work together with solicitors’ leaders in matters of common interest. Lord Judge was keen that we should continue to do so. I am sure we will build on these developments.

 

Recorder’s pensions: We discussed this issue after it had been rejected at the Annual General Meeting of the Bar Council on 13^th June. The committee was not in favour of the proposal. However, enough signatories were raised to require a ballot of the bar. An exercise which cost approaching £7,000.The resolution was defeated.

 

On 6^th July a number of senior and junior members of the committee were kind enough to join me at an All Party Parliamentary Group meeting in the House of Lords. This was held to address the future of legal aid. We were somewhat thwarted by the sudden close of the event – before we had had a chance to question Lord Bach about his plans. Some of us did manage to speak to him privately afterwards. He received forceful accounts of the damage which is being done. My thanks to all who made a big effort to attend, especially those who had come prepared to ask questions.

 

As a result of the APPG we had to cancel the meeting Baroness Ruth Deech & Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. They are keen for the BSB to do as much as it can to assist the criminal bar and particularly to ensure that the younger element continues to thrive. They are keen to discuss how the codes of conduct may be amended to reflect the current market. I hope that a new date can be found soon after the summer break.

 

At the House of Lords and just before the APPG meeting I spoke to Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the former Law Lord, who has proposed amendments to the homicide provisions. He is very keen to gain the views of the CBA. It is all too easy when we are so often ignored in our submissions to politicians/civil servants on Legal Aid to forget the standing which we still enjoy in more hallowed circles. The Coroners and Justice Bill team are working to assist him.

 

 

This is my last Chairman’s report. It has been a great privilege to serve the Criminal Bar and it has been a pleasure to have been assisted by so many fine, dedicated and professional people. Thank you.

 

 

PETER LODDER QC

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report - June 2009

 

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT – June 2009

 

HCAs and employed advocates

 

There have been further meetings of the group chaired by Philip Mott QC. An article has been drafted with a view to publishing it in prison news publications. The initiatives concerning PCMH forms and other encouragement to Judges as a part of the hearing are being pursued. Letters have also been drafted to send to the LSB, LSC and SRA drawing attention to the practice of referral fees. Drawing upon the Scottish Appeal Court decision in Woodside, the draft highlights the clear conflict problems which arise when a solicitor who would benefit from the advocates fee is responsible for advising on the question of representation.

 

Criticism of the Judiciary for apparent bias in favour of the Bar has resulted in a concern to be seen to be even handed. Following a suggestion at a recent meeting with the Lord Chief Justice I am attempting to arrange a further joint meeting with LCJ which will include the Chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society and the President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association. There is strong interest on the part of the senior judiciary to ensure high standards of quality in advocacy. This will be an opportunity for this requirement to be clearly made to those who represent solicitor advocates. A common and sufficiently high standard is essential in the interests of Criminal Justice but also is bound to be to the advantage of the Bar. I have been invited to a further meeting with Thomas LJ to take forward QAA issues.

 

On 19^th May I gave evidence to the Cabinet Capability Review of the CPS. This was a welcome opportunity to challenge the economic argument which has become the mantra of their advocacy recruitment programme. The meeting was chaired by an economist who agreed with the observation that it was contrary to recent economic thinking for any significant government department to “contract in/recruit” services when they are readily available from outside contractors – to use current jargon!

 

In the evening of the same day there was a further Chatham House meeting with the DPP and his senior staff. We are continuing to press for detail on the substance behind their published accounts. That material should arrive shortly.

 

All of this leads to the important issue of the future form of the bar. I take this opportunity to remind the CBA of the comment I made on this topic in the recent edition of CBQ. It is of the greatest importance that members acquaint themselves with the options for the future: examples of which have been set out in the recent BSB consultation papers. Few have actively engaged in this debate and this cannot continue. There are significant opportunities for the bar in some of the changes under consideration. It is not inevitable that fusion will be the end result. The schemes proposed are intended to retain the characteristics and functions of advocacy as our principal and expert province. We need to know your views.

 

 

 

 

 

VHCC

 

Martin Chalkley has informed me that he cannot take our proposals forward because of the lack of further data on concluded VHCCs. It is absolutely vital that barristers provide this information. I will be sending a further note on this topic to every member of the association but please do all that you can to ensure that the steering group has what it needs. It is in your own best interest.

 

 

BVT

 

There is growing opposition from criminal solicitors to the introduction of the Best Value Tendering scheme. The pilots are being conducted in Somerset and in Manchester. A number of emails have drawn attention to an electronic petition, please sign up and support this initiative.

 

 

Other matters

 

With Ruth Paley as a representative of the Young Bar I met Baroness Ruth Deech & Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. They are keen for the BSB to do as much as it can to assist the criminal bar and particularly the younger element to continue to thrive. They wish to meet members of the committee and I have suggested 6^th July. The question of how the appropriateness of the codes of conduct to the current market is very much in their mind. 

 

The Sexual offences conference took place at The Royal College of Surgeons on Saturday 13^th June; another glittering success, it was much praised by attendees. Congratulations to Jeremy Dein QC, Aisling Byrnes and all others involved.

 

The Policing and Crime Bill and The Coroner’s and Justice Bill have passed through the Committee stages in the House of Lords and we have continued to monitor their progress.

 

On Friday 5^th June I attended a meeting of the Welsh Circuit and then joined them afterwards for a dinner in Cardiff Castle. On Monday 8^th June, with Vicky Ailes, I spoke to undergraduates at Oxford University. The problems which beset the criminal bar are widely known but I am impressed by the continued determination of good candidates to enter the profession.

 

Meetings to come

 

I will be meeting Henry Bellingham MP (shadow justice minister) with Desmond Browne QC on 22^nd June. We hope to learn about the Conservative party plans for Legal Aid.

 

And there will be a further Chatham House meeting with the CPS on 7^th July.

 

 

PETER LODDER QC

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report - May 2009

Chairmans Report - May 2009

HCAs

 

It feels as if the increase in the use of Higher Courts Advocates continues unabated. It is not surprising that this issue dominates discussions amongst members of the criminal bar. In the last fortnight Desmond Browne QC has written to the profession setting out the initiatives that the bar as a whole is pursuing.

 

This is a fundamental problem and there is a growing realisation that it will not simply be addressed by instant fix solutions. There are suggestions for immediate steps to make short term changes. These turn on levelling the playing field and ensuring that defendants are aware of their right to be represented by a member of the self employed bar: advertisements, questions in client care letters and on PCMH forms etc. The practicality of each of these steps is being investigated. There is also an urgent examination of the position in relation to referral payments, ‘kickbacks’ to you and me. We believe that there are bases for attacking these practices under the terms of the solicitors’ codes of practice – that solicitors must avoid being in conflict with their duty to serve the best interests of the client and also act within the terms of their contracts with the Legal Services Commission.

 

However this is also a time to look more widely at where the future of our profession lies. That there is a future for advocacy is certain. That the bar is the best provider of that service is beyond doubt. The CBA is determined to ensure that the bar retains its position as the advocacy profession of choice.

 

A steering group to review publicly funded advocacy (both prosecuting and defending) has been set up by the Bar Council under Philip Mott QC. I am a member of this group. We are looking across the whole landscape. The problems we face are unlikely to be solved by piecemeal change. Rather we need to look at the essentials which have always ensured that barristers are the advocates of choice and seek to change the rules to ensure that this continues to be the case. As part of this process recently I have participated in ‘Blue Sky’ meetings with the circuit leaders and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar.

 

The options we are contemplating are radical but the objective is that they should secure the future of the Bar and that they will not lead to fusion. This must be an informed debate and you must be an active participant in this process – even if it is simply to record your discontent! Please assist us to assist you. Let us know what you think about the options set out in the recent BSB consultation document on alternative business structures. For example: do you want direct access, to what extent and do you think that it would fatally compromise the independent character of the Bar? As and when further proposals emerge I will seek your views.

 

 

IN THE MEANTIME…

 

There have been the regular round of meetings, which have included:

 

A meeting with the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the new General Counsel Vivien Robinson QC. I am delighted to be able to tell you that despite the recommendations of the de Grazia report they are not in favour of recruiting in-house prosecutors they recognise the quality and value of the self employed bar. Of course this is one of the smaller prosecution offices, but it may be helpful in stemming the tide to point to these views.

 

We have had the Spring conference in Manchester on 24^th & 25^th April. This was an excellent event. We were made very welcome by the Northern Circuit and enjoyed a good dinner and a splendid conference. The co-operation of Manchester United Football Club in playing later on the Saturday was much appreciated – the CBA moves in mysterious ways!

 

The annual dinner was held on 15^th May. It was great success with a full hall at Lincoln’s Inn with a good attendance from the senior judiciary and guests from all parts of the Criminal justice system. Bob Marshall-Andrews QC made a humorous and thought provoking speech. I was particularly pleased that Emma Campbell Clyne was one of our guests.

 

Early the following morning some of us managed to attend the Remuneration Conference at the Russell Hotel in London. There was a full and stimulating programme. It was a useful opportunity to discover the views of the profession and there was much debate about the alternative business structures to which I have already referred. Our Vice Chairman Paul Mendelle QC contributed to a useful open forum discussion about the future of the publicly funded bar.

 

EDUCATION

 

By way of a reminder, the Sexual offences law and procedure conference will take place on 13^th June 2009 at the Royal College of Surgeons. If recent conferences are anything to go by this will be an excellent event and tickets will sell fast. Better get yours straight away!

 

PETER LODDER QC

CHAIRMAN

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report - April 2009

Chairmans Report - April 2009

HIGHER COURT ADVOCATES

 

There are good, competent and professional HCAs practising in the Crown Courts. There are employed advocates, formerly successful members of the independent bar, who now appear as in-house advocates for the Crown Prosecution Service and for defence solicitors. For those who act with propriety, in cases within the range of their ability and experience, and who respect the real interests of their clients, the right to appear in the Crown Court is beyond question. The CBA does not and will not criticise an advocate simply according to his category. In open competition the better advocates will succeed wherever they come from. The bar is well used to such competition, indeed it thrives on it. Competition has been an effective way of maintaining high quality in advocacy and the Criminal Justice System has benefited from it.

 

However, there is a growing problem. As is becoming widely known there are HCAs who appear in cases that are beyond their ability or outside their experience. It is unacceptable that a person who has conducted but two or three crown court trials should consider himself to be acting in a client’s best interests when he represents that client against a prosecution alleging a serious violent or sexual offence. However we are all aware of inexperienced in-house advocates who will represent defendants charged with serious crime; cases in which, on conviction, substantial prison sentences will be imposed.

 

There have been attempts, in some parts of the press, to hijack reports of poor performance and characterise such complaints as partisan or protectionist. They are full of talk of simmering rows and internecine strife, of the two sides of the legal profession turning on each other. These reports serve no valuable purpose if they do not stress the importance of qualified, professional representation, on both sides, to the efficient and effective running of the Criminal Justice System. This is of concern to us all and particularly to the senior judiciary. Indeed, I have spoken to many who represent employed advocates who are deeply embarrassed by the effect that the poor performance of some is having on their own image.

 

Our concern is, and always will be, for the quality of criminal justice.

 

But whichever way the problem is cast, let us not be distracted from the real significance of this issue, there are deep challenges which have to be met. In the short term we are investigating steps to ensure:

 

That a universal and appropriate standard is required for all advocacy,

 

That all clients are fully and properly informed of their choice when it comes to choosing their advocate,

 

That open competition is not distorted by referral payments or “secret commissions”.

 

In the slightly longer term, and with a sense of urgency, the modern bar must adapt to the recent market changes. Work does not come into any profession simply because it is demanded. Economic pressures do not respect professional status. Likewise, it would be a great mistake not to consider alternative forms of business structure just because they are different. It is of the greatest importance that members of this association acquaint themselves with the options for the future: examples of which have been set out in the recent BSB consultation papers. Few have actively engaged in this debate and this cannot continue. There are significant opportunities for the bar in some of the changes under consideration. It is not inevitable that fusion will be the end result. The schemes proposed are intended to retain the characteristics and functions of advocacy as our principal and expert province. We need your views to assist in choosing the right course to maintain a thriving criminal bar.

 

EDUCATION

 

The bar maintains it’s standards and excellence by virtue of it’s education programmes. The high quality of the Criminal Bar Association’s training has been exemplified by two recent highly successful conferences:

 

On 7^th March 2009 there was an outstanding conference on advocacy at the Royal College of Surgeons. The target audience was junior practitioners in the up to 10 year call bracket, but it was attended by many who were more senior. The day comprised of a review of all stages in the presentation and conduct of a criminal trial, each seen from both the prosecution and the defence perspective. An added and invaluable bonus was the speech of His Honour Judge Rivlin QC (The Recorder of Westminster) which offered advice and guidance from the judicial perspective. The quality of all the speakers, juniors and silks (many who are or were treasury counsel) and the presentation of the conference as a whole, was most impressive. It was enjoyed by an audience of  200 members.

 

The CBA Spring Conference was in April. Following the successes in Birmingham and York, this year it was held in Manchester. “Conviction and Beyond” dealt with the issues of sentencing, confiscation, the process and procedures of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, prison law and the parole system and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. These important topics were dealt with informatively by a range of inspiring speakers. They covered aspects which are of increasing significance and highlighted areas of work which some may not have considered before. The warm welcome of the Northern Circuit ensured that a constructive conference was also a particularly enjoyable one.

 

VHCC

 

Not so much of a headline at the moment, but the VHCC topic continues to command our attention. The steering group has been meeting regularly to consider the responses to the consultation paper. Vital to this process is obtaining accurate data from concluded cases. You will have received a letter from Desmond Browne QC and me asking you to provide details of your cases which have closed since the beginning of the year or will come to an end over the next few months. Much of the criticism of the proposals made in the paper was founded on the insufficiency of the data used. This is your chance to help to remedy this problem – please use it and give the steering group the information it needs.

 

The CBA continues to fight for the interests of criminal practitioners but, as always, we need your assistance in order to do so.

 

PETER LODDER QC

CHAIRMAN

Click here to discuss...

Charmans Report - March 2009

 

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT - March 2009

 

VHCC

 

The CBA response was submitted at the beginning of March. It is a thorough and well considered document and has attracted many plaudits. During the extended consultation period we received the submissions of many sets of chambers, some circuits and a few individuals. Needless to say there was a wide range of comment. In the CBA response we sought to reflect the balance of views contained in those submissions. Broadly speaking we expressed satisfaction with: instructions on a case by case basis, the removal of the panel, and the concept of core tasks subject to a proper calculation. We have suggested putting more work into the core tasks and having two categories. We raise concerns about refresher rates and about the absence of provisions for re-trials, and we assert that the figures should be based upon the November 2008 budget.

 

However, we have also made clear that the proposed rates are not acceptable. The analysis giving rise to these rates, based on the 88 cases, appears to be flawed and so we have stated our view that it will not be attractive to most members of the criminal bar. The LSC have agreed to the suggestion that it is better to spend more time on getting this right than to find ourselves saddled with a system that is unworkable. The current contract is to be extended; because it can only be extended once, the LSC will extend for the maximum 12 months. However, it is expected that the consultation process will be completed within that time. The break clause may be invoked so that a new regime may be introduced earlier.

 

 

QAA

 

On 26^th February there was a meeting at the Inner London Crown Court attended by representatives from the Ministry of Justice and from Cardiff Law School - who are to analyse the results. It was clear that there had been considerable hostility to the pilot from the permanent Judges. I understand that they are now prepared to participate. Not surprisingly some members of the bar are a little wary of this pilot. Judicial assessment is not unknown in our system – Judges still perform a role as referees in applications for silk, for example. It is vital that any scheme to ensure the maintenance of high standards is effectively and properly conducted, but we should not overlook the opportunity that quality assessment offers to require defence solicitor advocates to perform to the same standards as are required of the Bar. If we do not participate then that opportunity may be lost, and a scheme designed that is insufficiently rigorous or based upon a form of self-assessment. It is also in the Judges’ interests to have good quality advocates appearing in their courts. It is plain that the pilot suffers from significant misunderstandings, but we should seek to make it work rather than simply refuse to play any part. I believe that the other pilots are running satisfactorily.

 

 

 

 

 

Justice select committee/CPS

 

The Justice Select Committee has been enquiring into the CPS. In February I was asked to give evidence on behalf of the CBA. During the hearing I challenged the assertion that CPS in-house advocates are more economical than using the independent bar. I explained that we did not have the information to establish the correct position. The Committee invited me to provide them with the appropriate requests and indicated that they would obtain this material. With the assistance of Martin Chalkely, questions have been formulated which are focussed on the relevant data. Those questions were submitted on 3^rd March. We hope to receive the material soon.

 

 

Other meetings:

 

On 3^rd March I gave a lecture to students at University College London. The effects of fee cutting in publicly funded work are known to students, but there continues to be a strong interest in the criminal bar. We should not mislead anyone as to the future but we must encourage the interest of good candidates as an important part of maintaining our profession.

 

I hope to speak to students at City University, Birmingham University and Oxford University soon. A number of junior members of the association have agreed to speak at each event.

 

I met with Stephen Wooler the Chief Inspector of the CPS Inspectorate on 16^th March. He is in the final stages of completing his report and wished to hear the CBA view of developments within the service, particularly on in-house advocacy. We will have to wait for publication, but if it is a fair reflection of what we know is happening in the courts, then it must support the arguments we have been advancing on quality of advocacy and the speed of the change.

 

We have been assisting the National Audit Office in their value for money investigation into the LSC. They wish to conduct a survey of some members of the bar – we will be assisting in the preparation of the questionnaire and making suggestions about its distribution.

 

I have continued to attend meetings with Presiding Judges and other senior members of the judiciary. They recognise the difficulties that we face and support our attempts to maintain quality in advocacy and the independence of the criminal bar.

 

 

Educational events

 

There was an excellent conference on advocacy at the Royal College of Surgeons on 7.3.09. It was aimed at the up to 10 year call bracket – although attended by many who were more senior. The quality of the speakers, and the presentation of the conference as a whole, was most impressive. It was enjoyed by an audience of approximately 200 members. The suggestion has been made that a similar event should be run again in two years time. Congratulations to all who were involved.

 

Rudi Fortson gave a most interesting lecture on “the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - a smorgasbord” on the 24.2.09 as the last in the Winter Lecture Series.

 

The Spring Conference is to take place in Manchester 24/25^th April the topic is “Conviction and Beyond”. This is an important part of the CBA commitment to circuiteers. It is full and interesting conference and I look forward to seeing Northern and North Eastern and Midland Circuit practitioners we hope for a good attendance from all parts of the country.

 

Tom Little

 

17^th March was Tom Little’s last committee meeting. He has been a very capable secretary. He comments with authority on all current issues and madcap initiatives. With infinitely good judgment and an endearing smile he has often provided welcome guidance to this occasionally hapless chairman. He has set a high standard for the future holders of his office. The CBA owes him enormous thanks. I will miss him.

 

And finally

 

The Annual Dinner is on 15^th May, be warned: tickets are going fast!

 

PETER LODDER QC

CHAIRMAN

 

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report - January 2009

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - JANUARY 2009

 

 

 

VHCC

 

To be dealt with on the agenda – at this stage to stress that we need as many responses as possible from members. Have received some responses from individuals and sets. Meeting to be convened hopefully on Monday 2^nd February – venue to be confirmed.

 

 

HCAs

 

Response from regulatory bodies unhelpful. Meeting with LCJ and Thomas LJ a further meeting to be arranged plan to encourage Judges to take a more active role in identifying poor performance. QAA proposals discussed pilot to be commenced shortly (Mott note)

 

 

CURRENT CONSULTATIONS/ CBA RESPONSES

 

Policing & Crime briefing paper, parliamentary reaction.

 

Coroners & Justice Bill

 

VHCC

 

Defence costs/ Means testing

 

 

Administrative costs

 

Visits to Manchester and Birmingham

 

DINNER - Reminder

15^th May in the Great Hall at Lincoln's Inn, the guest speaker will be Bob Marshall-Andrews QC.

 

Spring conference

 

24/25^th April - Manchester

 

 

PETER LODDER QC

CHAIRMAN

 

Click here to discuss...

Chairman's Report - December

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - DECEMBER 2008

 

 

This is the last report of 2008 and will be made to the AGM and so, for some matters, I include a short review of the year:

 

 

VHCC

 

 

This issue has dominated the year. In January the "new" contract was issued but few members of the bar chose to sign it. Objection was taken to the level of the rates and to many of the terms of the contract itself. Despite this clear indication of the market the LSC persisted with the format and it was re-issued a month later, the only variation being permission for solicitors to instruct off panel ('ad hoc' as it has come to be known). This made no difference to the market, indeed fewer barristers signed than before.

 

A long period of stalemate was brought to a head in September/October when there was significant press interest in the fate of a series of multi-handed cases - the most high profile of which was the Rhys Jones murder trial. Compromise in the payment regime for that case made clear that the LSC was abandoning any residue of principle. The weight of Government concerns brought an inflexible LSC back to the negotiating table. Further negotiations, driven by the Bar, resulted in modest increases in the earlier rates in November. At the beginning of December proposals were put forward for the contract to be amended to make it easier for solicitors to instruct advocates of choice who are not panel members. This is an improvement on the position at the start of the year and has taken up a great deal of the time and effort of Tim Dutton QC to whom we are grateful. It is important to note that the MoJ have been told by the Circuit Leaders and the CBA that the acceptance of this system is very much upon the basis that it is an interim measure and that a new and improved scheme – more reflective of a graduated fee system – will be in place by July 2009. Jack Straw has indicated that this is an important priority. On behalf of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC has been playing a significant part in the continuing negotiations to achieve this new scheme.

 

A consultation paper setting out proposals for a new scheme has now been produced by the LSC; all members of the association are encouraged to read it and respond. Those responses will be collated by the secretary Tom Little.

 

 

HCAs

 

 

Over the past year concern about this issue has grown. It is the most significant challenge for the membership of the CBA. It is not a question of protectionism. It is a concern about the quality of representation and the provision of proper information to clients as to who they may have to represent them. The effects of the Carter Reforms are forcing more and more solicitors firms to try their hands at advocacy, this is driven by economics and not by the interests of the client. The resultant increase in the numbers of HCAs is stark. The Bar does not object to competition, it is at the heart of how we have operated for many years, but that competition must operate to the same standards as are expected of us. We are seeking to ensure a level playing field. Initiatives such as the tighter regulation of two advocate certificates are to be welcomed. The QAA pilot schemes to monitor and maintain levels of performance should help. We will continue to keep an eye on standards and encourage the judiciary not to tolerate poor performance. I encourage all of you to continue to supply information on this topic. Remember also that the bar must maintain its own high standards and be above criticism.

 

 

LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS/ CBA RESPONSES

 

 

Lest we forget there have been other aspects of the Criminal justice System to which the CBA has made a significant contribution. As always we have responded to new initiatives. Many members of the association have given of their time in working groups and on bodies such as the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee for which the Association is very grateful. Two particular developments this year have been Witness Anonymity and proposed reform of the law on Homicide. The CBA has produced sensible and detailed commentary on both of these fundamental topics, including a highly informative and useful lecture on the Anonymity provisions. It is clear that our contributions are well regarded and enhance the respect and influence of the criminal bar in government and with the wider public.

 

The legislative programme introduced by the recent Queen's speech heralds a number of important criminal bills: in addition to Homicide and Anonymity of witnesses to which I have referred there will be reforms of Coroners Courts, a Policing and Crime Bill, a Bribery Bill and further legislation concerning sentences and the Sentencing Guidelines Council. There will be much work still to do.

 

At present the Ministry of Justice is consulting on two important aspects to access to justice: Crown Court means testing and the Award of Costs from Central Funds. Both of these papers raise significant issues. There is widespread concern that the changes proposed will lead to fewer defendants being represented in our courts and to forcing some of those who are into accepting lower quality representation because the state will not reimburse the costs they would otherwise choose to incur. The CBA is preparing responses to these papers. Individual chambers should also consider making their views known.

 

 

EDUCATION

 

 

The Autumn conference on identification was very successful. It was an extremely well run, informative event and is a further credit to the Education Team under Jeremy Dein QC. The winter series continued with an excellent and also well received lecture on Miscarriages of Justice by Bill Clegg QC.

 

There will be a Spring conference in Manchester to be held jointly with the Northern Circuit – date and topic to be announced soon.

 

 

DINNER

 

 

The annual dinner will be held on 15^th May in the Great Hall at Lincoln's Inn, the guest speaker will be Bob Marshall-Andrews QC.

 

 

 

 

I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and let us hope for a Happy New Year

 

 

 

 

PETER LODDER QC

CHAIRMAN

 

 

 

Click here to discuss...

Chairmans Report

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT NOVEMBER 2008

 

VHCCs

 

The results of the re-negotiation were publicised at the end of October.

 

The change in rates is an increase of approximately £3-4 per hour and the refreshers have been increased proportionately. This means that the rates are closer to that which was paid before January of this year, but they continue to be modest. It remains a matter of personal choice as to whether individuals accept work on these revised terms.

 

Any person wishing to do this work will not be required to sign a contract. Instructions will be on an ad hoc basis and therefore payment will be through the solicitors as a disbursement. CBA advice is that they should only be accepted under the Bar Council protocol (a copy of which is available on the web site). Although it appeared that a limit would be placed on the amount which may be claimed for travel and no claim could be made for hotel accommodation if instructed ad hoc, I understand that that is not in fact the case.

 

The funding order came into force at the beginning of November 2008.

 

I have received reports that some contract managers are telling solicitors that they must use panel members (ie those who signed the contract at the beginning of the year) before instructing advocates who are available off-panel. This attitude defeats the object behind the re-negotiation and may give rise to article 6 issues. It also fails to take into account a solicitor's own judgement of who the best person for the job is. This matter has been taken up with the government and with the LSC; efforts are being made to resolve the difficulty.

 

The extent to which work is being taken up on the ad hoc basis is not clear.

 

 

HIGHER COURT ADVOCATES

 

This issue has found its way into the press recently. We continue to raise the arguments that allow proper client choice and to highlight how that choice is compromised, for purely economic reasons, by some solicitors. There is an important public interest principle that the best available advocate should be instructed in all cases.

 

The CBA and the circuits have gathered a considerable body of material about the poor performance of advocates. This has been provided to the Bar Standards Board as the regulators of the Bar and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. In raising the issue of standards we must be careful always to maintain the highest possible standards ourselves.

 

The matter has been taken further by the judiciary. Close scrutiny is now being made of certificates for two counsel to ensure that they are not used as a vehicle for employing straw juniors. There is no reason to fear this development – proper, justified applications will continue to be granted. The impact is expected to be felt in cases where solicitors instruct counsel to apply so as to enable the firm's in-house advocate simply to sit in court and collect an advocate's fee. There is anecdotal evidence that it is this practice which has lead to the substantial increase in the numbers of such certificates. A new application form has now been issued and circulated. It will be seen that there is a requirement that a copy of the defence statement and the prosecution summary must be attached. There will be cases where such documents are not available, the notes on the reverse of the form provide for what has to be done when that is the case.

 

 

PROSECUTION FEES

 

There is a re-negotiation in progress at the moment. The objective is to achieve a re-alignment of the fees paid to prosecutors in graduated fee cases and to reduce the level of disparity between what is paid to prosecute and to defend. However this is not an exercise which will achieve full parity. The CPS is not prepared to pay Carter rates and has imposed a restriction on the advocacy budget to being approximately 23% below that paid under RAGFS. In these circumstances the best that is likely to be on offer is a discounted scheme which reflects defence rates and therefore eradicates the worst incidents of disparity. It is to be noted that Carter deliberately re-distributed fees to favour the junior bar by increasing the rates payable on the shorter cases. These are the cases which in house CPS advocates are now doing and may do more of if the rates are improved.

 

 

BAR COUNCIL ELECTION RESULTS

 

I am delighted to announce that five out of the six CBA supported candidates were elected. Congratulations to: Maura McGowan QC, Mark Bryant-Heron, Edward Henry, Fraser Coxhill and Vivienne Tanchel.

 

 

RECENT MEETINGS

 

I have had separate meetings with Lord Chief Justice and with the Senior Presiding Judge. Both expressed concern about the future of the independent criminal bar. The maintenance of high quality advocacy and the importance of having advocates who are capable of properly assisting the court is a high priority for each of them. The senior judiciary are well aware of the impact of budgetary constraints.

 

 

I will be meeting the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, with the circuit leaders, on 25^th November. We hope to impress upon him the profound adverse effects that the reductions in court and legal aid budgets are having on the justice system. It will also be an opportunity to reinforce the message that in so far as members are prepared to work on the revised VHCC rates this is on an interim basis until July 2009. I will seek further assurance from him that the new scheme will not be based upon hourly rates supervised by contract managers

 

 

OTHER EVENTS

 

 

As expected the Kalisher Lecture was a great success and we are very grateful to Sir David Penry-Davey for giving it.

 

We are also grateful to Nick Herbert MP (Shadow Attorney General), Roger Smith (Director of Justice) and Maya Sikand (Garden Court Chambers) for appearing at our workshop on Hate Crime at the Bar Conference on 1^st November. This was a well attended and much appreciated seminar which provoked lively and challenging debate.

 

On 11th November Professor David Ormerod and Duncan Penney spoke on recent developments in the law relating to anonymity for witnesses. This also was well attended and we are grateful for the time that David and Duncan gave to preparing and presenting this very helpful lecture.

 

 

 

IN THE NEAR FUTURE

 

 

The CBA autumn all day conference on identification will be held at the Royal College of Surgeons on 29^th November.

 

In the next lecture of the winter series on 9^th December at the Old Bailey, Bill Clegg QC will speak on miscarriages of justice

 

I hope that members of the association will support these events.

 

 

Peter Lodder QC

 

Chairman CBA

 

Click here to discuss...

Chairman's Report (October)

CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (October 2008)

 

VHCCs

 

This continues to be a difficult topic. There are now a significant number of these cases in the pipeline. Many are being looked after by junior counsel who have not signed a contract and are acting pro bono. These practitioners do not wish to see defendants unrepresented and they strive, albeit whilst handicapped, to assist the courts in which the cases are listed. In doing this they are displaying the highest standards of professionalism. However it is not a long term solution and it does not pay the bills. The complexity of these cases is illustrated by the fact that certificates for Queen's Counsel have been granted in a high proportion of them. If there is to be meaningful preparation and properly conducted hearings the problem must be resolved soon. Some of these trials are listed to take place within the next few months.

 

At the time of writing my last report negotiations on a new scheme and for an interim position were taking place. The need for focus on the short term was clear. We do not appear to be any further forward. In interviews on his appointment, the new President of the Law Society made comments which were critical of the Bar. I do not rise to this but simply observe that a number of solicitors have expressed a view that they would be happy to see a resolution of these problems. They recognise that such a resolution is much more likely if both sides of the profession work together to achieve that outcome. Progress may also have been affected by the government re-shuffle which led to a change in the ministerial line up at the MOJ.

 

I am conscious of the frustration that is felt by many over this issue. The Bar continues to seek reform of the VHCC system in the long term and to engage in positive and sensible discussions with the LSC and MOJ (and the Law Society) for a resolution to the looming short term crisis. I trust that there will be developments soon and will keep you informed of any progress.

 

 

HIGHER COURT ADVOCATES

 

Another continuing problem: I have received many reports about the growing numbers in court centres around the country. The circuits have also received many reports of the impact on justice of the indiscriminate use of the inexperienced and inadequately trained. This material is being collated and will support the representations we will be making. Please maintain the flow of information.

 

There are developments which show that the courts are taking the issue of the quality of representation seriously. Recently certificates for two juniors have been withdrawn where the need for, or the performance of, the second junior has been in question. Last week the Court of Appeal Criminal Division required the attendance of the prosecution at a sentence appeal hearing because of criticism of the way that a prosecution HCA conducted himself.

 

Steps to ensure that all advocates perform to the high standard that is expected at the self-employed bar are welcome, but we must always have in mind the necessity for each member of the bar to uphold those standards. The CPS Inspectorate is conducting an assessment of prosecuting advocates at a variety of court centres over the next few months. This assessment is not confined to those who are in-house, they will also be looking at the performance of the self-employed bar. This is a good opportunity to prove our point – I hope all will take advantage of it.

 

 

BAR COUNCIL ELECTIONS

 

Nominations for election to the Bar Council have to be received by 21^st October 2008, the ballot will be in November. At this difficult time it is important that a sufficient number of criminal practitioners stand for election and that members of the association support them. For further information please contact the secretary Tom Little.

 

 

OTHER EVENTS

 

In September Tom Little and I met with the National Audit Office who are looking into an enquiry into value for money in criminal legal aid. We took this opportunity to press the economic case for the use of the criminal bar. We hope to meet again soon. Later in the month I met with circuit leaders. VHCC was high on the agenda but so also was the involvement of the CBA in each of the circuits. Plans for visits and for a spring conference in Manchester are being made.

 

 

The Young Bar Conference was on 4^th October. The CBA ran a workshop on "Criminal and Civil Proceeds of Crime for the Criminal Practitioner" with vigorous and informative presentations by Stephen Hellman and Martin Evans, to whom we are indebted. This was an excellent event, well attended and highly praised. Thanks also to those junior practitioners who manned the CBA stand and encouraged a number of new members.

 

 

Following the October committee meeting there is a small reception for the national and regional press (newspaper and television). It is very important that we have good contact with the media so as to ensure our message is heard.

 

 

IN THE NEAR FUTURE

 

The Kalisher Lecture

 

Making Sense of Sentencing: A Brief History of Doing Time is on 21^st October 2008 in the Old Bailey Bar Mess. It will be given by Sir David Penry-Davey, High Court Judge and former Chairman of the Bar. This promises to be an entertaining and informative event, it is also the occasion when the Kalisher scholarships and prizes are presented.

 

The Bar Conference

 

On 1^st November, will be held at the Royal Lancaster Hotel, London. The theme is "Multinationalism and Multiculturalism – Tomorrow's world". The CBA will be running a workshop on Hate Crime. The speakers will be Nick Herbert MP (Shadow Attorney General), Roger Smith (Director of Justice) and Maya Sikand (Garden Court Chambers).

 

I hope that members of the association will support these events.

 

Peter Lodder QC

 

Chairman CBA

Click here to discuss...