Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
deckster said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
i haven't commented one way or another about how 'fine' i think the system is, or isn't.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.
My interpretation of your statement is that they can accept the situation or they can leave, and that therefore you assess the problem to be with the barristers rather than the system.If that's incorrect, could you clarify what you actually meant?
Electro1980 said:
So… there isn’t room to negotiate a market rate. There is progression within the band depending on experience but that’s not the same as negotiating a salary. If you think you are worth more simply due to the market the answer is going to be “computer says no”.
As for being aware of the salary and taking a low wage, that’s rather the point. People were aware of the salary and were happy with it. The value of that has now been eroded due to inflation to a point where they are no longer happy. It has reached the point where the pay bands for a job no longer reflect the work. That is why people are threatening to strike, and why many areas have huge shortages. People are taking other jobs. The strikes in the public sector are warning of that. They are taking action short of quitting. If they all quit, what then? Criminal justice, NHS and education all fall apart?
We have shortages as it is in many areas. Governments have thrown money at teaching and healthcare training in the past but failed to have any impact because of the 5-10 years it takes to go from unqualified to useful, independent and productive, and the fact that it’s 10-15 years before you we any real impact because you only have so much capacity to train. Any decent business will tell you that it’s cheaper to retain experienced people at a higher pay than train new ones.
You are covering problems with the system. It's not down to the barristers to strike and blackmail organisations into doing something about it.As for being aware of the salary and taking a low wage, that’s rather the point. People were aware of the salary and were happy with it. The value of that has now been eroded due to inflation to a point where they are no longer happy. It has reached the point where the pay bands for a job no longer reflect the work. That is why people are threatening to strike, and why many areas have huge shortages. People are taking other jobs. The strikes in the public sector are warning of that. They are taking action short of quitting. If they all quit, what then? Criminal justice, NHS and education all fall apart?
We have shortages as it is in many areas. Governments have thrown money at teaching and healthcare training in the past but failed to have any impact because of the 5-10 years it takes to go from unqualified to useful, independent and productive, and the fact that it’s 10-15 years before you we any real impact because you only have so much capacity to train. Any decent business will tell you that it’s cheaper to retain experienced people at a higher pay than train new ones.
I wonder how many of them are actually striking solely because they don't want to see the system fail.
If there is institutional issues with the way it is all run then there are other platforms to direct energy at.
skwdenyer said:
So the role of Govt isn't to make sure the right things are done at the right time, but is instead to wait until the last possible moment and then throw cash at an elastoplast fix?
If enough people think like that, no wonder we've got the Govt we have. You think exploiting people with a social conscience is a reasonabel policy choice?
Govt's role is to provide a stable environment, with proper long-term planning and resource allocation. In that there has been abject failure.
Totally agreed. If enough people think like that, no wonder we've got the Govt we have. You think exploiting people with a social conscience is a reasonabel policy choice?
Govt's role is to provide a stable environment, with proper long-term planning and resource allocation. In that there has been abject failure.
The criminal justice system is falling apart. Providing those accused of crimes with 1) a timely trial and 2) a competent legal defence, really are the bare minimums of what the state should provide.
Amateurish said:
Totally agreed.
The criminal justice system is falling apart. Providing those accused of crimes with 1) a timely trial and 2) a competent legal defence, really are the bare minimums of what the state should provide.
I'm aware of a fairly straightforward case (not in terms of guilt but the available evidence and facts) where the accused was charged with 3 cases of sexual assault in December 2019. The trial went to court in December 2021 but the jury were dismissed before the trial concluded. It went to court again in May 2022 where the accused was found not guilty on one charge and no conclusion on the other 2. I understood they were to consider a retrial earlier this month on the 2 outstanding charges.The criminal justice system is falling apart. Providing those accused of crimes with 1) a timely trial and 2) a competent legal defence, really are the bare minimums of what the state should provide.
Now, I know nothing of whether the accused is guilty or not. But what we have is either 2 victims waiting at least 2 if not 3 years for a conclusion, or we have an accused that cannot even consider returning to their profession (due to the nature of the accusations and their profession) until this is concluded.
Nobody appears to win in this scenario. Well, the newspapers perhaps.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
You are covering problems with the system. It's not down to the barristers to strike and blackmail organisations into doing something about it.
I wonder how many of them are actually striking solely because they don't want to see the system fail.
If there is institutional issues with the way it is all run then there are other platforms to direct energy at.
It’s not blackmailing. It’s the only negotiating tool left. What’s the other platforms to deal with underfunding exactly?I wonder how many of them are actually striking solely because they don't want to see the system fail.
If there is institutional issues with the way it is all run then there are other platforms to direct energy at.
Pixelpeep 135 said:
You are covering problems with the system. It's not down to the barristers to strike and blackmail organisations into doing something about it.
I wonder how many of them are actually striking solely because they don't want to see the system fail.
If there is institutional issues with the way it is all run then there are other platforms to direct energy at.
They've been campaigning for years to change the system, there was an independent review a few years back that recommended an immediate 15% increase to the flat fee for example, but nothing is changing.I wonder how many of them are actually striking solely because they don't want to see the system fail.
If there is institutional issues with the way it is all run then there are other platforms to direct energy at.
The Secret Barrister blog/book explains it quite well
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
Murph7355 said:
BlackWidow13 said:
In your world, who in society should be responsible for ensuring that those who are accused of crimes and who have not enough money to pay for a lawyer get legal representation?
And why.
The way it's done now?And why.
The debate comes down to how to fund a pay rise for criminal lawyers doing legal aid work....
a) not at all, they get enough over a career anyway
b) out of general taxation, where we already spend more than we receive
c) something else
I vote a combo of a and c. For c, get those who are using the legal system for things that are well funded to pay more so that money from it can be allocated to the bits that aren't, perhaps? So when wagathas go to court for a ding doing, say, don't bill them 1m, bill them 10m. Etc.
Various commonwealth countries in the Caribbean still have the death penalty. The final court of appeal against conviction or sentence from these courts is the Privy Council in London.
However criminal defence work is funded in those territories (and I don’t know the answer to that), it’s no surprise to learn that someone in the Caribbean has no practical means to pursue an appeal to the Privy Council.
Most of the Magic Circle London law firms who do civil commercial work day in day out, and probably have little to no human individual in their client list, have a pro bono department. Specifically one to run Caribbean death row appeals before the PC. Funded out of the firm’s income, because the income is plenty large enough to cover the costs of running these appeals.
Such appeals are argued by English barristers, acting for free, because (a) it’s vitally important that these appeals are properly prepared and presented when a human life is at stake; (b) lots of criminal barristers regard their calling as as much vocational as professional; and (c) doing one of these appeals infrequently for no reward is financially doable.
It’s a highly laudable and little known aspect of what London lawyers get up to.
But it’s a tiny fraction of a Magic Circle’s overall billable capacity, and it’s a manageable fraction of a barrister’s time. No one could possibly expect the entire criminal justice system of a so-called developed western democracy to operate on the same principle.
Moreover, it should not fall to lawyers to support the cost of running a criminal justice system, any more than it should fall to doctors and nurses to support the costs of running the NHS, or to teachers to support the cost of running state education in this country.
All of those things are costs that ought by properly to fall on the population of a country as a whole via taxation. I don’t like having to pay tax but even I recognise that it has to be paid. One can make arguments for how the tax income is spent in the U.K. (or mis-spent) but there’s no good argument for taking the costs of the criminal justice system out of the pot funded by tax.
As others have repeatedly said, successive Governments have gnawed away at criminal defence funding. Cynically one might say that Governments of both colours in this country hate it when lawyers stop them doing what they want to do, and this is just a way of “enhancing” law and order.
That, though, is balls. If you look at the US, you have public defenders, who are poorly paid. You also have a criminal legal system that is very heavily tilted towards you pleading guilty or entering a plea bargain as soon as you’re charged. The net result of that is that American prisons are rammed, and they are rammed with poor people, which means predominantly non-white people. It’s pretty abhorrent.
BlackWidow13 said:
Your point c has belatedly brought something to mind.
Various commonwealth countries in the Caribbean still have the death penalty. The final court of appeal against conviction or sentence from these courts is the Privy Council in London.
However criminal defence work is funded in those territories (and I don’t know the answer to that), it’s no surprise to learn that someone in the Caribbean has no practical means to pursue an appeal to the Privy Council.
Most of the Magic Circle London law firms who do civil commercial work day in day out, and probably have little to no human individual in their client list, have a pro bono department. Specifically one to run Caribbean death row appeals before the PC. Funded out of the firm’s income, because the income is plenty large enough to cover the costs of running these appeals.
Such appeals are argued by English barristers, acting for free, because (a) it’s vitally important that these appeals are properly prepared and presented when a human life is at stake; (b) lots of criminal barristers regard their calling as as much vocational as professional; and (c) doing one of these appeals infrequently for no reward is financially doable.
It’s a highly laudable and little known aspect of what London lawyers get up to.
But it’s a tiny fraction of a Magic Circle’s overall billable capacity, and it’s a manageable fraction of a barrister’s time. No one could possibly expect the entire criminal justice system of a so-called developed western democracy to operate on the same principle.
Moreover, it should not fall to lawyers to support the cost of running a criminal justice system, any more than it should fall to doctors and nurses to support the costs of running the NHS, or to teachers to support the cost of running state education in this country.
All of those things are costs that ought by properly to fall on the population of a country as a whole via taxation. I don’t like having to pay tax but even I recognise that it has to be paid. One can make arguments for how the tax income is spent in the U.K. (or mis-spent) but there’s no good argument for taking the costs of the criminal justice system out of the pot funded by tax.
As others have repeatedly said, successive Governments have gnawed away at criminal defence funding. Cynically one might say that Governments of both colours in this country hate it when lawyers stop them doing what they want to do, and this is just a way of “enhancing” law and order.
That, though, is balls. If you look at the US, you have public defenders, who are poorly paid. You also have a criminal legal system that is very heavily tilted towards you pleading guilty or entering a plea bargain as soon as you’re charged. The net result of that is that American prisons are rammed, and they are rammed with poor people, which means predominantly non-white people. It’s pretty abhorrent.
With CJ specifically, there's an issue around statistics. If, let's say, 90% of people taken to court are convicted, there's a temptation to say "well, statistically they're likely to be guilty if we get to trial, so we shouldn't waste money on fancy defence lawyers."Various commonwealth countries in the Caribbean still have the death penalty. The final court of appeal against conviction or sentence from these courts is the Privy Council in London.
However criminal defence work is funded in those territories (and I don’t know the answer to that), it’s no surprise to learn that someone in the Caribbean has no practical means to pursue an appeal to the Privy Council.
Most of the Magic Circle London law firms who do civil commercial work day in day out, and probably have little to no human individual in their client list, have a pro bono department. Specifically one to run Caribbean death row appeals before the PC. Funded out of the firm’s income, because the income is plenty large enough to cover the costs of running these appeals.
Such appeals are argued by English barristers, acting for free, because (a) it’s vitally important that these appeals are properly prepared and presented when a human life is at stake; (b) lots of criminal barristers regard their calling as as much vocational as professional; and (c) doing one of these appeals infrequently for no reward is financially doable.
It’s a highly laudable and little known aspect of what London lawyers get up to.
But it’s a tiny fraction of a Magic Circle’s overall billable capacity, and it’s a manageable fraction of a barrister’s time. No one could possibly expect the entire criminal justice system of a so-called developed western democracy to operate on the same principle.
Moreover, it should not fall to lawyers to support the cost of running a criminal justice system, any more than it should fall to doctors and nurses to support the costs of running the NHS, or to teachers to support the cost of running state education in this country.
All of those things are costs that ought by properly to fall on the population of a country as a whole via taxation. I don’t like having to pay tax but even I recognise that it has to be paid. One can make arguments for how the tax income is spent in the U.K. (or mis-spent) but there’s no good argument for taking the costs of the criminal justice system out of the pot funded by tax.
As others have repeatedly said, successive Governments have gnawed away at criminal defence funding. Cynically one might say that Governments of both colours in this country hate it when lawyers stop them doing what they want to do, and this is just a way of “enhancing” law and order.
That, though, is balls. If you look at the US, you have public defenders, who are poorly paid. You also have a criminal legal system that is very heavily tilted towards you pleading guilty or entering a plea bargain as soon as you’re charged. The net result of that is that American prisons are rammed, and they are rammed with poor people, which means predominantly non-white people. It’s pretty abhorrent.
The problem is easy to see: in the absence of a robust CJ defence function, far more bad cases are likely to come to trial. I don't know the stats around the number interviewed but not charged, charged but not tried, tried but plead guilty without further trial, and so on. But the CJ defence function keeps the system honest (or as honest as it can be when laws can be changed quickly and without reference to anything so inconvenient as a constitution or binding bill of rights).
The argument must be about what price a CJ system that can be relied upon to create just outcomes; not about whether we can - for now, assuming everyone behaves themselves - get away with death by 1000 cuts.
There are enough miscarriages of justice within recent memory to remind us that not everyone behaves themselves, even now.
MesoForm said:
Not much room to argue with that! (Funny that)skwdenyer said:
...or as honest as it can be when laws can be changed quickly and without reference to anything so inconvenient as a constitution or binding bill of rights...
Whilst I agree with your post I think our legal system is better in just about every single way than our friends with their constitution and amendments!fblm said:
skwdenyer said:
...or as honest as it can be when laws can be changed quickly and without reference to anything so inconvenient as a constitution or binding bill of rights...
Whilst I agree with your post I think our legal system is better in just about every single way than our friends with their constitution and amendments!skwdenyer said:
fblm said:
skwdenyer said:
...or as honest as it can be when laws can be changed quickly and without reference to anything so inconvenient as a constitution or binding bill of rights...
Whilst I agree with your post I think our legal system is better in just about every single way than our friends with their constitution and amendments!fblm said:
No but I was; their bill of rights seems to cause far more problems than it solves! Isn't that what the Lords are supposed to be for? IANAL obviously.
Fair. The Lords have no ultimate ability to prevent laws from passing, and can be stacked by the party in power.I’m talking about actual constitutions, immutable only by the people in supermajority, that enshrine basic rights.
We desperately need that here. The US constitution is not the only model for how that should be done.
greygoose said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
thebraketester said:
GetCarter said:
Just so we all know the facts:
Training to be a criminal barrister: 5 years.
Cost of bar course: c.£13,000
Median annual income for juniors in first 3 years:
£12,200
Dreadful. Training to be a criminal barrister: 5 years.
Cost of bar course: c.£13,000
Median annual income for juniors in first 3 years:
£12,200
deckster said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.
My interpretation of your statement is that they can accept the situation or they can leave, and that therefore you assess the problem to be with the barristers rather than the system.But Deckster fairly observes that your statement implies that the problem lies with the barrister and not the (Criminal Legal Aid) system.
Take it from me. The system is in a state of collapse.
There are now so few barristers willing to do this kind of work that defendants are being left without representation. Cases are being delayed, in come cases for years. It isn't just the lack of barristers that is the problem. There is a lack of court space, too few judges and inadequate resourcing for the investigation and prosecution of cases.
These problems have been caused by 20 years of cuts. They are a function of the abject failure of successive governments properly to fund the police and the criminal justice system.
As an aside, it's not entirely accurate to describe the barristers' actions as a strike. They have simply decided not to accept instructions on any new Legally Aided cases. In a way, market forces have finally spoken. The ball is in the government's court. Either it starts paying sensible rates, or the system will grind completely to a halt.
I am a Criminal Legal Aid solicitor, rather than a barrister, but my situation is fundamentally the same. I routinely turn away certain types of cases. To deal with them would be financial stupidity.
I wholeheartedly support the action being taken by the barristers.
Regrettably, however, their timing stinks. To the casual observer it looks like they are jumping on the same bandwagon as railway workers, baggage handlers and the like. This is emphatically not the case, but the timing of the action plays straight into the hands of the government.
Pat H said:
deckster said:
Pixelpeep 135 said:
if i feel my work isn't paying me enough i'll put my case forward (example job adverts, history of good work etc) - if they don't agree and i feel strongly enough i will look for a better paid job.
My interpretation of your statement is that they can accept the situation or they can leave, and that therefore you assess the problem to be with the barristers rather than the system.But Deckster fairly observes that your statement implies that the problem lies with the barrister and not the (Criminal Legal Aid) system.
Take it from me. The system is in a state of collapse.
There are now so few barristers willing to do this kind of work that defendants are being left without representation. Cases are being delayed, in come cases for years. It isn't just the lack of barristers that is the problem. There is a lack of court space, too few judges and inadequate resourcing for the investigation and prosecution of cases.
These problems have been caused by 20 years of cuts. They are a function of the abject failure of successive governments properly to fund the police and the criminal justice system.
As an aside, it's not entirely accurate to describe the barristers' actions as a strike. They have simply decided not to accept instructions on any new Legally Aided cases. In a way, market forces have finally spoken. The ball is in the government's court. Either it starts paying sensible rates, or the system will grind completely to a halt.
I am a Criminal Legal Aid solicitor, rather than a barrister, but my situation is fundamentally the same. I routinely turn away certain types of cases. To deal with them would be financial stupidity.
I wholeheartedly support the action being taken by the barristers.
Regrettably, however, their timing stinks. To the casual observer it looks like they are jumping on the same bandwagon as railway workers, baggage handlers and the like. This is emphatically not the case, but the timing of the action plays straight into the hands of the government.
I guess i come from a 'if you don't like it, don't do it' school of thought, but it seems that they actually DO care what happens to the entire system.
fblm said:
skwdenyer said:
....
We desperately need that here. The US constitution is not the only model for how that should be done.
Why do we need it and which model is so much better?We desperately need that here. The US constitution is not the only model for how that should be done.
Worse still, we've enshrined in law the ability of ministers to make very significant "primary" legislative changes by secondary legislation.
There is nothing to stop our government from, for example:
- extending the period between elections to 10 years, 20 years, or effectively never
- restricting the rights of some people to vote
- removing a woman's rights to an abortion
- curtailing press freedom
- prohibiting peaceful assembly (in fact they've just done so for the n'th time)
- instituting arbitrary detention (in fact they have)
- unreasonably delaying trial (we have that right now - there's no right to speedy justice)
- presuming somebody guilty (reverse onus - a feature of some UK law)
- restricting the right to trial by jury (long since done)
and so on. There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.
In terms of which model is best, that's an interesting question, upon which there needs to be a whole thread I suspect
But the least we should aim for is probably the German basic law.skwdenyer said:
There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.
Whilst I agree with your basic point, we do have the significant advantage of a certain agility in our legislation. We are all familiar with the constitutional wrangling and heart-ache over what a two-hundred-year-old document may or may not mean in a modern context, whereas our combination of primary legislation and case law does mean that we seem to ultimately get to the right answer, most of the time. At the very least, "our way" is not obviously worse than any of the alternatives and I don't see any compelling reason to change it in any significant manner.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff