What the Bar Strike Must Achieve
The unprecedented industrial action being taken by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has now been going on for sometime but the decision to escalate action further shows just how desperate the situation is and how far the CBA and the government are from an agreement.
Up to now, barristers have been striking on alternative weeks to disrupt the administration of justice in a dispute over legal aid funding by the government. Now, no new instructions will be taken from 5th September onwards.
The strike, up to this point, has already been extremely disruptive. One report suggested that in the first 19 days of action alone, more than 6,000 cases have been affected. Now that number will rise and the pain for victims, defendants and witnesses alike will be acute.
The decision could also have a knock-on effect for solicitors and other legal professionals as well.
Nevertheless nearly 80% of criminal barristers voted for this escalation.
The reason is because any short-term pain will surely be worth it if the government does come to realise the full extent of the shortfalls within the justice system.
As David Allen Green pointed out in his excellent daily post, the system relies so much on the goodwill of barristers. However in recent years this has been continuously taken advantage of by the government so that now it is almost impossible for many junior barristers to even be able to afford to do the job that they feel so passionately about.
All of this has to be seen in context as well.
Other workers from across a range of industries are also taking industrial action. Today it was even reported that journalists at the right-wing newspaper, The Daily Express, would also be walking out over pay.
As I have pointed out before, the industrial action taken by barristers is somewhat unique because it is about legal aid funding by the government instead of directly about pay from an employer. It arises from the government’s persistent desecration of the justice system rather than its general mismanagement of the economy.
In any case, the initial decision by the CBA to go on strike surprised many (including those in government) because they didn’t think barristers would actually take things so far. Now that these legal professionals have escalated things further, it demonstrates their seriousness about reform.
The Association has asked for a 25% pay rise and if that comes to fruition under a new Justice secretary (whoever that might be) then the industrial action may well come to an end but that should not stop barristers from taking the initiative if their strike produces results.
There were always worries that barristers would not attract much sympathy if they went on strike and there are indeed those who will continue to grumble (including comrades at The Daily Express). However thanks to advocates like The Secret Barrister etc. there is now a greater public understanding of the damage that this government has done to the justice system.
If that damage is to be reversed then now is the time to push for more wholesale reform.
This week in the podcast we discuss restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These orders can be issued by the courts to block access to assets that the authorities believe have been obtained through criminal conduct.
A restraint order can be varied in some circumstances though to provide for the basic needs of the alleged criminal. Here the Supreme Court was asked whether a variation could be made to allow for an individual to pay for legal expenses in a civil case as he awaits trial in the criminal courts.
Make a difference today,
Marcus