*/
The Chair of the Bar sought a public clarification from a senior judge over comments he made about the legal profession’s response to piloting extended court sittings.
Lord Justice Fulford, the judge in charge of reform, wrote a letter to ‘demystify’ plans for the pilots, which are due to start at six courts in the autumn, in light of what he termed ‘public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession’.
He said: ‘I regret the extent of the widely broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources’. Responding to critics, Fulford said the scheme ‘is not a disguised attempt to persuade, or force… legal professionals and others to spend more time at court’.
He acknowledged the Bar’s concerns over the scheme’s practicality and impact on diversity and said: ‘If it works, it works; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.’ He stressed that a ‘detrimental impact on diversity… is not a price the judges are willing to pay’.
Responding, Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC, acknowledged there had been misunderstandings, but said that was because the consultation lacked detailed proposals about the scheme, which had been developed in a ‘somewhat piecemeal fashion’.
Langdon said: ‘I hope you did not mean implicitly to criticise the Bar Council… in raising these concerns, and doing so vocally and vehemently.’
He asked: ‘I wonder if, on reflection, you would be prepared, publicly, to make it clear that you did not mean to suggest that the Bar leaders who have been grappling with this had been ill-informed or misunderstood?’
The Chair of the Bar sought a public clarification from a senior judge over comments he made about the legal profession’s response to piloting extended court sittings.
Lord Justice Fulford, the judge in charge of reform, wrote a letter to ‘demystify’ plans for the pilots, which are due to start at six courts in the autumn, in light of what he termed ‘public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession’.
He said: ‘I regret the extent of the widely broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources’. Responding to critics, Fulford said the scheme ‘is not a disguised attempt to persuade, or force… legal professionals and others to spend more time at court’.
He acknowledged the Bar’s concerns over the scheme’s practicality and impact on diversity and said: ‘If it works, it works; if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.’ He stressed that a ‘detrimental impact on diversity… is not a price the judges are willing to pay’.
Responding, Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC, acknowledged there had been misunderstandings, but said that was because the consultation lacked detailed proposals about the scheme, which had been developed in a ‘somewhat piecemeal fashion’.
Langdon said: ‘I hope you did not mean implicitly to criticise the Bar Council… in raising these concerns, and doing so vocally and vehemently.’
He asked: ‘I wonder if, on reflection, you would be prepared, publicly, to make it clear that you did not mean to suggest that the Bar leaders who have been grappling with this had been ill-informed or misunderstood?’
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today