Justice secretary questions hiring of QCs in criminal trials
Taxpayer funding for criminal defence should to go to less-expensive lawyers than QCs, Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, said today.
Grayling used an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme to criticise the way the annual £1bn criminal legal aid budget is spent, particularly the proportion used to instruct QCs.
He said: ‘If you look at the daily rate for a senior QC it can be between £1,300 and £2,000. For somebody who's going to become a QC in a month's time, it's just over half that amount.
‘The question is, can we really afford so often to use people who are paid such an additional higher rate compared with somebody who's nearly as experienced, who's a seriously competent barrister, who will become a QC one day if they choose to do so.’
Grayling said: ‘The reason I'm starting this discussion, and I'll be talking to the Bar Council and others, is that in some cases we're now spending £500,000 or more on legal fees.’
On the same programme, bar chair Maura McGowan QC said further cuts to criminal legal aid would be damaging. She likened the use of inexperienced barristers to a junior doctor performing complex surgery.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council has begun its search for a new chief executive. It has been without one since its former chief executive, David Hobart, joined the City of London Law Society in May 2011.
According to an advertisement in The Sunday Times, ‘Strong candidates will be proven general managers with considerable financial acumen.’
Comments
CRIMINAL COSTS !
This is yet another slippery slope ! There are already adequate measures in place to ensure that a QC is only used when necesary. What Mr Grayling is seeking is a system whereby "criminals" do not receive the representation they could have if they could afford it. It's a vote-winner but a little too close to being an Americanised system of criminal justice. This is not what this country needs !
Juniors not Leaders
Why not save some more money and have ministries led by MPs instead of ministers?
Inside Grayling`s mind ?
Just use QCs for commercial law, I mean pounds shillings and pence and shareholder entitlements are all so much more important than someone`s life and liberty at risk. They probably committed the crime anyway (this policeman told me) and don`t deserve all that expense and expertise wasted on them. They`re only poor people usually.
Go the whole hog Mr. Grayling
Contract all the criminal defence work out to an ABS by insisting on competitive tendering, with the lowest tender guaranteed to get the job. The quality would be guaranteed because commercial pressures would make them only use the finest advocates.
Worth pointing out this 2012
Worth pointing out this 2012 interview with the recently-retired Lord Justice Hooper, in which he says:
"When I started, anyone charged with homicide or rape would have a QC representing them. Now, in many serious cases there will be no QC appearing either for the prosecution or the defence. Defending or prosecuting someone charged with such a serious crime demands huge skills. I worry that an absence of those skills due to funding cuts could lead to miscarriages of justice, that is, guilty people being acquitted or innocent people convicted."
http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/Articles/Newsletter/401
unprecedented
No previous Lord Chancellor has ever seriously suggested this. Wonder why not?
Oh yes, all had professional experience as lawyers, unlike Mr Grayling who knows nothing about the realities of our criminal justice system.
Dismantle what you don't understand. Save some money. Fine.
Quid pro quo
...and while we are on the subject of more nonsensical changes to the justice system, who is for university politics students to sit as MPs - just think of the financial savings to me made...
btw - Chris Grayling's Wikipedia entry reads "As of September 2012 he is serving as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the first non-lawyer as Lord Chancellor since 1558."
You don't say!
Think this through....
Easy to spot what's coming: Abolition of leader's fees entirely.
Senior juniors and leaders paid the same.
This was trailed by the last incumbent of Grayling's post.
"Taxpayer funding for
"Taxpayer funding for criminal defence should to go to less-expensive lawyers than QCs", says the summary in my email alerter.
But almost all of it does, only a trifling fraction of a percent of the cases, never mind the money, goes to QCs.
I'm sure he'll get a nice comfortable promotion in the next Cabinet shuffle.
Increased competition can't be all that bad?
If QCs are allowed to compete with non-QCs for all criminal legal aid work then although they might not get such high daily rates as they do now they will be able to compete with their non-QC colleagues for some relatively lucrative work like complex frauds. These cases often pay better then murder/rape cases due to the high page-count but seldom have legal aid extended for QCs. It might not be all that bad for QCs, but far more competitive for the top end of the junior bar.
Grayling on QCs in criminal cases
IF - (repeat IF) - QCs are the very best lawyers then why should someone charged by the State with a very serious offence involving complex law not be allowed the best representation possible. You can be sure that the Crown will continue to engage only the best. If the QC rank means anything at all then it must mean that the holder is pre-eminent in his/her field of law. If it does not mean this, then the rank should probably be abolished.
The real problem Grayling should be addressing is the vast figure in unpaid fines - £600m or more. This is a public scandal which brings the law into disrepute.
Defendants in a criminal trial should have the best lawyers
25 January 2013
Dear Mr Hargreaves, Law Gazette,
If Mr Grayling were to find that one of his friends were in a position of having to defend him/herself, would Mr Grayling state that he/she should be represented by the lowliest counsel possible?
If a person is being charged with an indictable offence, then the Crown will have at its disposal oodles of cash and be able to get the money from the Treasury. But a person is always deemed INNOCENT until proven guilty, and therefore Mr Grayling is wrong in the first instance that "criminals" should not get QC's to represent them in a Crown Court trial. For in England we have the system where everyone is INNOCENT until found guilty. There is no halfway measure in England where "Not Proven" is a finding in fact.
And even where there is "double jeopardy" where a person can be tried twice for the same offence, where new evidence is brought forward, STILL the person is INNOCENT until proved guilty.
So where are these "criminals" to which Mr Grayling makes mention?
If a person is a convicted criminal and stands trial in a Crown Court on a new case, STILL this person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEED GUILTY in this NEW trial.
I believe that these must be made absolutely clear otherwise we face losing perspective of Innocent until proven guilty.
Mr Grayling expounds a very dangerous view.
I would be very grateful to have a national debate on this.
Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Cantwell
Do we get value for money from Chris Grayling?
‘The question is, can we really afford so often to use people who are paid such an additional higher rate compared with somebody who's nearly as experienced, who's a seriously competent barrister, who will become a QC one day if they choose to do so.’
Easy to simply say that someone is overpriced and that people should choose a cheaper alternative. Firstly becoming a QC is not a matter of personal choice. Secondly there appears to be no attempt to put forward any quality benchmark. Lastly there might be a good reason why a barrister has not become a QC and is charging less.
Strangely find myself agreeing with Chris Grayling's approach but only within the context of whether we get value for money from the justice secretary and Ministry of Justice.
Equality of arms
Didn't hear the radio interview but did read Grayling's Sunday Times article yesterday. Started out saying all the right emollient things before moving on to "the right balance between the needs of justice and the needs of the public purse...whether too often we are paying for a legal Rolls-Royce and not something that can do the job equally well.....that might mean making more use of the best and brightest among our younger barristers and solicitors and less use of those legal Rolls-Royces; or paying for a single lawyer, and not a team, in court".
So will he set an example by using only youngsters to prosecute and limiting their access to experts etc. to keep the playing field level? In my experience, admittedly a long time ago now, prosecuting was generally easier than defending anyway.
My favourite part of the
My favourite part of the interview was when he called those who would otherwise be, "suspects" or "defendants", 'criminals'!! That said it all! Indeed, why spend a penny on 'criminals'?! Who said you were innocent until proven guilty? However much as I'd like to giggle no-end, the serious question is this: when was the last time you saw a QC in any trial -- much more a murder or serious trial? The public is not being told the truth here. Given that so very few QCs are used now (at least since 2011), I would strongly advice Grayling to go ahead with his discussions and plans! - it should be interesting to assess the
impact of his initiative if it gets phased in...
Equality of arms (2)
^^^Oh no... the Crown will be determined to secure a conviction to show how good the system is at catching criminals and sending them to prison, because that is what Daily Mail readers want. So prosecutors will still be QCs, and defendants can have the new-style apprentice.
How long before we move to a US-style public defender's office?
Seems like the Bar Council haven't been consulted. Barristers teading this, you have seen how the Government deals with your Solicitor colleagues. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Why dont you actually consider his point?
Come off it folks. QCs ARE vastly overpaid and sometimes not particularly better than experienced Counsel.
Yes, quite.
Yes, quite.
You are all missing the
You are all missing the point. What is needed is a noddy guide to representing oneself in the higher criminal courts so that criminals, I mean defendants, can be on an equal footing with the prosecution. If it's good enough for factious Felicity (and her fushcia follicles) from Fulham, flagging with a fractured fibula in her sub 5k claim, it's good enough for everyone else.
Here we go again.
Worth pointing out this 2012 interview with the recently-retired Lord Justice Hooper, in which he says:
"When I started, anyone charged with homicide or rape would have a QC representing them. Now, in many serious cases there will be no QC appearing either for the prosecution or the defence. Defending or prosecuting someone charged with such a serious crime demands huge skills. I worry that an absence of those skills due to funding cuts could lead to miscarriages of justice, that is, guilty people being acquitted or innocent people convicted."
Well, when considering funding cuts, perhaps the above Lord Justice and some of his now retired colleages (Sir Charles Gray to name one) might reflect on one or two of the cases they presided over. Had they looked at certain cases properly, perhaps they would not have been pointlessly bounced around the court for years afterwards at great cost to the taxpayer. Time for the legal profession and the judiciary to get their act together and stop blaming everyone else.
Dear Kelly,
Dear Kelly,
I do read with interest some of the points you make on this forum. However, banging the anti-legal profession drum in this case is somewhat confused . This is not about whether the judiciary or legal profession needs to 'get their act together and stop blaming everyone else'. This is quite clearly to do with access to justice. If you were wrongly accused of, say, a complex fraud or murder would you not want the best defence possible. This may include using a QC. However, under these proposals, you are seemingly already deemed 'a criminal' and therefore not worthy of using a QC unless you could pay for it.
I know I would want to be able to access the best, should I be wrongly accused of something and not have the means to pay for it to withstand the powerful apparatus of the state.
Kelly is merely an anti legal
Kelly is merely an anti legal profession troll. Responding to anything from her merely encourages further trolling.
But look what happens if an
But look what happens if an MP gets in trouble. QCs aren't too expensive for Mr Grayling's buddies, I note that Chris Huhne is not facing trial for murder or rape, but for fiddling a speeding ticket - does he have a junior barrister - no, he has a QC.
On legal aid? And do you
On legal aid?
And do you really think a QC running this case will deliver a more effective defence than a competent junior counsel with regular experience of this type of trial?
I am astonished to see solicitors defending QCs getting up to half a million pounds a year while we are seeing Law Centres and small solicitors' firms closed down by legal aid cuts for ordinary people. There are plenty of obnoxious and offensive cuts to be opposed. The fees at the lower end of the profession (Bar and solicitors alike) are disgustingly low. But we should not let any of that blind us to the fact that the sums paid to QCs are outrageously high, and the argument that they deliver something unique that could not be delivered by a competent senior junior or solicitor-advocate is in most cases untenable.
The Government has made it clear more cuts are on the way. However good the arguments against cuts, we aren't going to be able to wish them away. There are many better things to get upset about than the fees paid to the handful of millionaires in our system.
Point is they say it is just
Point is they say it is just as good but do not follow their own rhetoric
Start with the politicians
In 2008, the Tax Payers Alliance estimated we spend £567k for each MP sitting in Parliament.
That was well before the shocking revelations of MPs' abuses of the expenses they were claiming.
We now sit here as lawyers listening to Grayling's pious twaddle about reducing overheads. But who has heard anything about politicians turning the costs' microscope on themselves? All we get is a deafening silence.
I would be more interested and sympathetic to their rhetoric on costs' cutting if we got even a scintilla of introspection from any of them. Perhaps Grayling might be the first to set the ball rolling by telling us how he aims to reduce his own income in the name of appropriate austerity measures.
It is all too easy finding fat to cut elsewhere.
Chris Grayling
I'm sure if Chris Grayling was wrongly accused of a serious allegation he'd want a silk, and he'd want them to be properly remunerated for securing his acquittal.
What cases pay £2000 a day? I can't find them.
QCs are an Insurance Policy
Any solicitor that uses one of these bright young juniors in a murder case had better be damn sure his client will get off or at least will not complain when it all goes pear-shaped and he goes down for 30 years minimum. Otherwise "i didn't have a QC" will be point no. 1 on the complaint to the SRA.
Anyway, the number of bright young juniors who can do a case like that you can count on the fingers of one hand.
Taking the Micky
I suspect the point Mr Grayling is trying to make is that one has to question whether the state/taxpayer should be paying vast sums (£500,000 = 20 times annual average earnings) for a QC to represent a person who has for the last 20 years been seen to be living in the lap of luxury beyond the reach of British Justice, who then comes back for reasons best known to himself but takes up residence in one of the swankier parts of Mayfair. Despite protestations of poverty by the individual concerned, the judge took a sensible view. Perhaps the QC should take a sensible view and wait for his money until it is recovered by the state. And the same goes for those paid by the state to defend Abu H and Abu T. There are many others who are obviously more deserving of state support when facing the majesty of the law in cases which perhaps don't have the thrill of testing the limits of the Human Rights Act or the public's credulity. I'm not sure who's taking the micky here, but its me who's paying and I'm not happy.
QC's in Criminal trials
The rank of QC is awarded only after a lengthy and rigourous process is engaged in to identify the best in their chosen areas of practice. They are the 'consultants' of their branch of the profession. Just 10% of the bar is 'in silk'. Do not deny the public the services of these skills. Simply reduce the QC's rates of pay to the same as those leading juniors of whom Mr. Grayling speaks. The result being the financial savings sought with the public still having a choice and the best available to them.
Then why are some so
Then why are some so useless?
QCs or not??
Whatever happened to Justice, Access to Justice and The Rule of Law?
Grayling seems totally out of his depth and ignorant of his alloted subject.
QC
Question: Did we see QC's standing shoulder to shoulder with those of us at the coal face of Criminal Justice.
Answer: a resounding no. Michael Mansfield being a noteworthy exception.
Far be it for me to agree with a Conservative policy but there are very many capable senior Juniors and some sufficiently experienced Solicitor Advocates and their capacity should be drawn upon.
And it gives me great satisfaction to see a largly Conservative voting minoity in the legal profession get shafted by the party they voted for.
Equality of Arms??
Equality of Arms doesn't appear to be the issue here. From experience of murder trials during the last two years the prosecution presence at court has regularly comprised of a barrister ( not always a silk!) supported by the OIC with no junior and no CPS caseworker. The defence team in the same trials have always comprised of Senior Counsel (usually QC) supported by a junior, a solicitor and often a second staff member from the firm. From the perception of the victim's family it is inequality in favour of the defendant.
There are excellent, capable barristers out there who are not QCs and who do not command the same fees. Perhaps market forces should be allowed to impact on QC fees for the benefit of both sides -
Hiring QCs
The Law's inefficiency makes it ineffective and unjust. It is time that cost was investigated the money saved could be better spent preventing crime to deliver justice to all rather than providing legal privilege for the few.
At least the miscarriages of
At least the miscarriages of justice years down the line will be nice and cheap to resolve when a different government is in charge. And of course by then those miscarriages of justice will be actioned in person by the defendant.
Justice Secretary
Without the income generated by QC's many Law Chambers would cease to exist How would that effect the many junior & senior barristers.
Never mind many of those who moan will become your bestest friend when they need your service AND you'll be a great lawyer, not like the rest, whoever the rest are
Isn't it time rather than
Isn't it time rather than dancing around the issue for the Government to order that all lawyers in receipt of legal aid are to have the amounts paid to them from public funds published on the internet.
It would save a lot of argument and the armchair accountants can soon work out who is milking the system. Sunshine is after all the best disinfectant.
Transparency in the use of public funds is the best cost cutting measure as the furore of council officers in Wales awarding themselves pay rises of 20 - 30%.- now being stopped/curtailed? - won't happen again.
The consent of the lawyers [if it is required] can be inserted as a clause in the LSC contracts - if a lawyer is not prepared to permit disclosure then disbarred from public funding - do not forget it is the lawyer who gets the legal aid not the litigant.
QCs and Legal Aid
I think it is only right that any person who earns over £25k should pay for their own and family's health care and education. There should be no tax credits.
After all if someone is excluded from legal aid and has to pay privately for a trial in the Mags Ct, then they should pay for all services.
Likewise those who get free education and free healthcare shouldn't expect to get the best teachers or the best consultants. It's only fair.
Lets save loads of money and put people's lives, futures and liberty at risk.
Mr Grayling is an idiot.