Legal aid and fee cuts for criminal barristers has been a source of significant controversy over the past few months and there has been a great deal of discussion over how this is going to affect defendants in criminal cases.
The speculation is now over and the real effect of the cuts is apparent. One of the major cuts the MOJ made was a 30% reduction on the fees applicable to very high cost cases which comes into force after the end of March 2014 and it is this cut in particular that is having a significant effect on a complex fraud case set to go to trial in late April 2014. This is the first criminal case where barristers have refused to accept work because of the lower fees imposed by the MOJ.
The case is a complex fraud case with multiple defendants. A solicitor who represents 4 of the 8 defendants has applied to have the trial put back because he cannot find a barrister to represent his clients, despite contacting 17 sets of chambers. All of chambers refused to help on the basis the MOJ fees were not sufficient to make it worth the barristers acting in the case.
At a pre-trial review, the solicitor for 4 of the defendants made his case to delay the trial date but the judge would not deviate from the fixed trial start date already set and warned that the defendants may have to represent themselves. In a complex case such as this, the benefits of an experienced barrister is fundamental to putting forward the best defence possible, with anything less having the potential to lead to a wrongful conviction and a serious injustice. If a defendant has to represent themselves they will not have the advocacy skills required to sway a jury, nor will they have the legal knowledge to form a coherent and convincing defence to put forward at trial, cross examination of witnesses also poses a significant dilemma, especially in sex and violence cases.
The likely outcome of barristers refusing to accept instructions in this case is that less experienced barristers will act for the defendants as the reduced fees are likely to be more acceptable to more junior barristers. This still raises issues for the defendants because they are not able to instruct the person best suited for the job of defending them even though their freedom is on the line. Is this the new face of access to justice?
