Barristers strike over pay
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
dingg said:
The chap I instructed 10 years ago charged me 1500 a day, at the end of the case in the bar opposite the court having a celebratory drink, he showed me the pics of his new aston, his aeroplane and his second much younger very attractive wife, I though to myself, "wish I'd stuck in a bit more at school"
So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
What criminal charges were you on?So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
Murph7355 said:
And, one assumes, not eligible for legal aid
No legal aid, charged with assault, crown court jury took less than an hour to acquit. Officer in charge of the case, couldn't be bothered to investigate properly, witnesses for the other parties tripped themselves up lying in court. A concerted set of actions intending to intimidate my wife and myself arranged by a neighbour who was an absolute nutjob ended up in fisticuffs.
I suspect that the average citizen doesn't understand how little criminal barristers are paid early in their career. Joe Public just thinks "Oh, barristers, they all earn squillions and live a life of luxury. Why should they get a pay rise when nurses only earn a pittance?" It's always about what a nurse earns.
In addition, the average citizen never experiences the criminal justice system, unlike, say, the NHS. If the courts grind to a shuddering halt then most people won't even notice (unless they are professionally involved, a witness or victim etc.).
Once upon a time the Tories were perceived as the party of law and order. Seems like that's no longer true. Political opportunism has eclipsed Conservative values, it appears.
In addition, the average citizen never experiences the criminal justice system, unlike, say, the NHS. If the courts grind to a shuddering halt then most people won't even notice (unless they are professionally involved, a witness or victim etc.).
Once upon a time the Tories were perceived as the party of law and order. Seems like that's no longer true. Political opportunism has eclipsed Conservative values, it appears.
XCP said:
skwdenyer said:
I think that delays like that should mean an automatic acquittal. Justice delayed is justice denied. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in many grown-up constitutions. If the Crown can't mount a case in 3 years, that's just tough on the Crown in my book.
A sure way of encouraging more delaying tactics by the guilty!dingg said:
Murph7355 said:
And, one assumes, not eligible for legal aid
No legal aid, charged with assault, crown court jury took less than an hour to acquit. Officer in charge of the case, couldn't be bothered to investigate properly, witnesses for the other parties tripped themselves up lying in court. A concerted set of actions intending to intimidate my wife and myself arranged by a neighbour who was an absolute nutjob ended up in fisticuffs.
The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
rscott said:
Ok, so a completely irrelevant anecdote. Thanks for that..
The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
Of course its relevant, they mostly all start at the bottom (legal aid) once the cream rises to the top they earn substantial amounts, some will fall by the wayside, its like every profession some make it big, most don't. It's the 'industry' they've entered and it probably needs adjustment to work better, the strike may assist that happening The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
dingg said:
rscott said:
Ok, so a completely irrelevant anecdote. Thanks for that..
The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
Of course its relevant, they mostly all start at the bottom (legal aid) once the cream rises to the top they earn substantial amounts, some will fall by the wayside, its like every profession some make it big, most don't. It's the 'industry' they've entered and it probably needs adjustment to work better, the strike may assist that happening The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
dingg said:
Of course its relevant, they mostly all start at the bottom (legal aid) once the cream rises to the top they earn substantial amounts, some will fall by the wayside, its like every profession some make it big, most don't. It's the 'industry' they've entered and it probably needs adjustment to work better, the strike may assist that happening
That's not how it works. All criminal barristers will do a cycle through the legal aid system, it's the taxi rank system. That's how it works in chambers. Yes, the better ones will take on private paid work too, but the whole criminal justice system crumbles if all criminal defence barristers abandon the legal aid system.skwdenyer said:
XCP said:
skwdenyer said:
I think that delays like that should mean an automatic acquittal. Justice delayed is justice denied. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in many grown-up constitutions. If the Crown can't mount a case in 3 years, that's just tough on the Crown in my book.
A sure way of encouraging more delaying tactics by the guilty!XCP said:
skwdenyer said:
XCP said:
skwdenyer said:
I think that delays like that should mean an automatic acquittal. Justice delayed is justice denied. The right to a speedy trial is enshrined in many grown-up constitutions. If the Crown can't mount a case in 3 years, that's just tough on the Crown in my book.
A sure way of encouraging more delaying tactics by the guilty!rscott said:
dingg said:
rscott said:
Ok, so a completely irrelevant anecdote. Thanks for that..
The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
Of course its relevant, they mostly all start at the bottom (legal aid) once the cream rises to the top they earn substantial amounts, some will fall by the wayside, its like every profession some make it big, most don't. It's the 'industry' they've entered and it probably needs adjustment to work better, the strike may assist that happening The barristers are striking over legal aid payments, not fees for those able to pay market rate.
And this is predicated on the idea that justice should be for those who can afford it to pay, both on the client side, ensuring that no one wants to take legal aid defence cases, and the lawyers side, ensuring those with money behind them are the ones that survive to make the big bucks.
Edited by Electro1980 on Monday 22 August 14:55
essayer said:
I guess that writes off all crown court trials from that week ?
Most, but by no means all.There will be a few trials where the defendants are unrepresented.
There will be a few where the defendants are private payers, but these are extremely rare.
There will be a small, but not insignificant number of trials where the defendant is represented by solicitors with higher rights of audience or by barristers who are salaried employees of firms of solicitors, rather than members of the Criminal Bar.
And there will be some cases where the defendant is particularly vulnerable, such as those with mental health conditions where there may be arguments about fitness to plead. The agreed strike action permits barristers to represent such defendants without incurring the wrath of their colleagues on the picket line.
So the industrial action is not a complete downing of tools.
What the action does is put quite a lot of pressure on defence solicitors to step into the barristers' shoes. As a criminal defence solicitor, I have a professional obligation to my legally aided client and, in the absence of being able to instruct a barrister, I retain a duty to attend court and provide what help I can.
I broadly support what the Criminal Bar is trying to achieve, but the industrial action doesn't go nearly far enough to produce a reaction from Westminster.
The action will not bring the Crown Courts to a standstill. To achieve that, the Criminal Bar needs to refuse to accept instructions from the CPS and that's not presently within the scope of the agreed action.
dingg said:
The chap I instructed 10 years ago charged me 1500 a day, at the end of the case in the bar opposite the court having a celebratory drink, he showed me the pics of his new aston, his aeroplane and his second much younger very attractive wife, I though to myself, "wish I'd stuck in a bit more at school"
So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
Did he also mention how well-endowed he was? or pictures of his Cycling Proficiency Certificate?So once through the early days some do very well indeed.
Ps he was worth every penny :-)
Maybe it's just me but showing a client who had paid me £1500 various pictures showing how well I'm doing (both financially and in bed) just seems a tad....gauche?
Pat H said:
There will be a few trials where the defendants are unrepresented.
Poor old Bernie Ecclestone. He ought to be made to have a defence brief from among the strikers! It would make a change from CLARE MONTGOMERY QC (£1.5 million a year). Montgomery is a colleague of Cherie Booth (otherwise known as Cherie Blair, wife of former prime minister His Toniness) and turns up at some of the best publicised criminal cases. Countdown said:
Did he also mention how well-endowed he was? or pictures of his Cycling Proficiency Certificate?
Maybe it's just me but showing a client who had paid me £1500 various pictures showing how well I'm doing (both financially and in bed) just seems a tad....gauche?
It wasn't really like that, we spent quite a bit of time together chatting about common interests and his interest in sports cars and flying, he's also a qualified flying instructor and takes an interest in defence of pilots in civil aviation cases. Maybe it's just me but showing a client who had paid me £1500 various pictures showing how well I'm doing (both financially and in bed) just seems a tad....gauche?
A good egg in my book and there was no feeling that he was boasting whatsoever, his girlfriend happened to be in the pictures, they weren't brandished by him saying "look at me bird" lol
Brave Fart said:
I suspect that the average citizen doesn't understand how little criminal barristers are paid early in their career. Joe Public just thinks "Oh, barristers, they all earn squillions and live a life of luxury. Why should they get a pay rise when nurses only earn a pittance?" It's always about what a nurse earns.
In addition, the average citizen never experiences the criminal justice system, unlike, say, the NHS. If the courts grind to a shuddering halt then most people won't even notice (unless they are professionally involved, a witness or victim etc.).
Once upon a time the Tories were perceived as the party of law and order. Seems like that's no longer true. Political opportunism has eclipsed Conservative values, it appears.
Cameron wanted the Brexit ref to kill the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party once and for all. Instead it's killed the Conservative wing and left us with a reactionary populist vacuumIn addition, the average citizen never experiences the criminal justice system, unlike, say, the NHS. If the courts grind to a shuddering halt then most people won't even notice (unless they are professionally involved, a witness or victim etc.).
Once upon a time the Tories were perceived as the party of law and order. Seems like that's no longer true. Political opportunism has eclipsed Conservative values, it appears.
glazbagun said:
Cameron wanted the Brexit ref to kill the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party once and for all. Instead it's killed the Conservative wing and left us with a reactionary populist vacuum
I thought most of the changes the barristers are protesting about happened during the years of austerity when Cameron was in charge?Same story with things like police numbers.
JagLover said:
glazbagun said:
Cameron wanted the Brexit ref to kill the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party once and for all. Instead it's killed the Conservative wing and left us with a reactionary populist vacuum
I thought most of the changes the barristers are protesting about happened during the years of austerity when Cameron was in charge?Same story with things like police numbers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff