*/
The Bar Council has presented its case to the government for the justice system to be granted adequate resources in the Spending Review due to take place at the end of the month.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to ‘swift justice’ and the achievement of stated missions on public safety and economic growth can only be realised with sufficient money for the justice system. In our submission to the multi-year Spending Review we have set out specific financial priorities, including: removing the cap on court sitting days; part-funding of 100 additional criminal pupillages per year; an immediate uplift of 15% in fees for barristers carrying out criminal work and a new independent fee review body to report annually; capital spending on the court estate and an infrastructure plan; removing means testing for legal aid for both parties in domestic abuse cases; funding to tackle violence against women and girls in the family and criminal courts; and restoring legal aid for early legal advice.
Our call for sufficient resources is set against the backdrop of a 22.4% decrease in public spending on the justice system under the last government in per person terms taking account of inflation, with the cut most acutely felt in legal aid – the spending on barristers is reduced by over 39%. No wonder our vigorous tabloid press no longer talk about ‘fat cat’ legal aid lawyers.
Outside the publicly funded justice system, the position is much less gloomy. Revenue generated by legal activity was up by around 60% over the last decade to £43.7bn. We are a net exporter of legal services to the tune of billions of pounds and now hold a 10% market share of the world’s legal services market. The total tax contribution more than outweighs the sums spent by government on justice. This export premium, however, relies on a properly funded and functioning legal system. It therefore makes good economic sense, as well as being necessary for access to justice and to maintain public safety, for the government to prioritise justice in the coming fiscal event.
Unfortunately, the experience of public spending cuts on justice is much the same throughout the world.
In September a delegation of over 20 barristers from England and Wales attended the annual International Bar Association (IBA) conference. I spoke on a panel with leading advocates and a judge on the topic of: ‘The cost of everything but the value of nothing – what goes wrong when governments starve the justice system of funding?’ Some astonishing statistics included that over 45% of those incarcerated in South Australia are on remand (here it is around 18%); and the average spent on justice administration, that is on the provision of the courts, legal aid and prosecution services, is just €78 per person per year or 0.35% of GDP.
This international failure to take justice sufficiently seriously to fund it adequately undermines social and economic goods from which contentment and prosperity arise. It pushes problems on to other areas of public spending. With the greater public awareness of the shortcomings of the existing systems, I hope that we can turn a page on funding for justice.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has launched a consultation on the regulation of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) at the Bar. Their proposals include suggestions to amend Core Duty 8 from the duty not to discriminate unlawfully to a duty to advance equality, diversity and inclusion and to move to outcomes-based regulation of equality rules.
The Bar Council is deeply committed to supporting and improving EDI and while much progress has been made – thanks to the work of individuals, chambers, Inns, specialist Bar associations and others – there is clearly much more to be done.
There is a real question as to whether regulation, and the specific proposals made, are appropriate and will help. Providing an effective regulatory framework on EDI is essential, but any regulations must be evidence-based and provide clarity to barristers and chambers. It is also essential that any proposals for change are compliant with the law and have adequately considered enforceability. Proportionality as well as practicality must be at the heart of any change.
It is clear that the BSB’s proposals will affect the profession significantly and the Bar Council will scrutinise the consultation carefully. We encourage everyone at the Bar to do the same.
The Bar Council is working on our response to the consultation and will make this available to the Bar as soon as possible and to support individual and organisational drafting of submissions.
Sam Townend KC is Chair of the Bar 2024. Sam is a silk at Keating Chambers and practises in domestic and international construction, energy and professional negligence work. He is a mediator and adjudicator, and a Bencher at Lincoln's Inn.
The Bar Council has presented its case to the government for the justice system to be granted adequate resources in the Spending Review due to take place at the end of the month.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to ‘swift justice’ and the achievement of stated missions on public safety and economic growth can only be realised with sufficient money for the justice system. In our submission to the multi-year Spending Review we have set out specific financial priorities, including: removing the cap on court sitting days; part-funding of 100 additional criminal pupillages per year; an immediate uplift of 15% in fees for barristers carrying out criminal work and a new independent fee review body to report annually; capital spending on the court estate and an infrastructure plan; removing means testing for legal aid for both parties in domestic abuse cases; funding to tackle violence against women and girls in the family and criminal courts; and restoring legal aid for early legal advice.
Our call for sufficient resources is set against the backdrop of a 22.4% decrease in public spending on the justice system under the last government in per person terms taking account of inflation, with the cut most acutely felt in legal aid – the spending on barristers is reduced by over 39%. No wonder our vigorous tabloid press no longer talk about ‘fat cat’ legal aid lawyers.
Outside the publicly funded justice system, the position is much less gloomy. Revenue generated by legal activity was up by around 60% over the last decade to £43.7bn. We are a net exporter of legal services to the tune of billions of pounds and now hold a 10% market share of the world’s legal services market. The total tax contribution more than outweighs the sums spent by government on justice. This export premium, however, relies on a properly funded and functioning legal system. It therefore makes good economic sense, as well as being necessary for access to justice and to maintain public safety, for the government to prioritise justice in the coming fiscal event.
Unfortunately, the experience of public spending cuts on justice is much the same throughout the world.
In September a delegation of over 20 barristers from England and Wales attended the annual International Bar Association (IBA) conference. I spoke on a panel with leading advocates and a judge on the topic of: ‘The cost of everything but the value of nothing – what goes wrong when governments starve the justice system of funding?’ Some astonishing statistics included that over 45% of those incarcerated in South Australia are on remand (here it is around 18%); and the average spent on justice administration, that is on the provision of the courts, legal aid and prosecution services, is just €78 per person per year or 0.35% of GDP.
This international failure to take justice sufficiently seriously to fund it adequately undermines social and economic goods from which contentment and prosperity arise. It pushes problems on to other areas of public spending. With the greater public awareness of the shortcomings of the existing systems, I hope that we can turn a page on funding for justice.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has launched a consultation on the regulation of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) at the Bar. Their proposals include suggestions to amend Core Duty 8 from the duty not to discriminate unlawfully to a duty to advance equality, diversity and inclusion and to move to outcomes-based regulation of equality rules.
The Bar Council is deeply committed to supporting and improving EDI and while much progress has been made – thanks to the work of individuals, chambers, Inns, specialist Bar associations and others – there is clearly much more to be done.
There is a real question as to whether regulation, and the specific proposals made, are appropriate and will help. Providing an effective regulatory framework on EDI is essential, but any regulations must be evidence-based and provide clarity to barristers and chambers. It is also essential that any proposals for change are compliant with the law and have adequately considered enforceability. Proportionality as well as practicality must be at the heart of any change.
It is clear that the BSB’s proposals will affect the profession significantly and the Bar Council will scrutinise the consultation carefully. We encourage everyone at the Bar to do the same.
The Bar Council is working on our response to the consultation and will make this available to the Bar as soon as possible and to support individual and organisational drafting of submissions.
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
