Barristers seek pay body

Criminal bar wants fee structure like other criminal justice professionals

Barristers working in the criminal courts have called for the creation of an independent body to set and maintain fees for publicly funded work.

“Criminal barristers are key workers,” the chair of the Criminal Bar Association Mary Prior KC said in her weekly message to members yesterday. “Without us, the criminal justice system would collapse. We are paid by the government to undertake a public service.”

Mary Prior KC

But why, she wanted to know, had the government turned its back on the criminal bar when it had asked to be treated in the same way as others working in criminal justice.

She observed:

Eight pay review bodies make recommendations impacting 2.5 million workers. The key workers who are covered by these bodies include the police, prison staff, the National Crime Agency, civil servants, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the judiciary and members of parliament.

The new government committed to the pay review body process as the means for setting pay for frontline public sector workers, committed to more timely pay awards. They gave their reasons as the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people. We agree.

Prior added:

Imagine a world where we were given respect and dignity and received an annual pay award without having to fight for it. Rejected.

Imagine if the recommendations of government-appointed independent reviews into our fee structure were followed and we did not have to take action to achieve that end. Ignored.

Imagine a world where we could simply focus on presenting cases to the best of our ability and working collaboratively with the Ministry of Justice and other government agencies to reduce the backlog and ensure that there are enough criminal barristers available to prosecute and defend.

The criminal bar had made four requests:

1. An independent review body or power for the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board to make pay recommendations.

2. Ring-fencing of the outstanding money previously promised.

3. An increase of 15% in all fees.

4. Broad parity of fees so there is no major discrepancy in payments between those prosecuting and defending.

Prior had been told that the government had no more money to offer. She rejected that argument:

There is always money in an emergency and there is money for 2.5 million workers to have an annual pay award. This is an emergency, and we urge the government not to make the mistake of relying on our goodwill and assuming that we will just carry on.

Time, she said, is running out.