As crime becomes ever-more complex, talented and experienced advocates are needed. So where is the necessary funding? asks David O'Mahony

The bar is once again in a dispute with the government about the level of fees to be paid in criminal cases.


In light of its many references to the fight against crime, the number of recent high-profile cases and its professed concern to ensure that fraud cases are successfully prosecuted, the government's reluctance properly to fund the criminal bar seems surprising.


Crime can only be properly tackled and complicated cases properly tried if there are skilled and experienced advocates and judges. Fraud is becoming increasingly complex and international terrorism is creating new and delicate issues, while crimes such as rape, burglary and violence appear as prevalent as ever. The public is entitled to expect that there will be a body of people with the ability and experience competently and effectively to deal with these cases to ensure the guilty are convicted, the rights of the individual are protected and the system is run as efficiently as possible.


The only way to ensure that able people chose the criminal bar and then remain there for the years it takes to develop the necessary skills and experience is to ensure that there are adequate financial rewards to make it worth their while doing so.


The real effect of the government's approach is that those at the junior bar who still have to choose which area of practice to concentrate on are making a clear decision not to risk a career in which all the indications are that more and more work will be expected for less and less money.


That there are real risks to the public in this approach is demonstrated by a recent Australian case. A Queensland politician and her co-defendant were convicted of electoral fraud. They were each sentenced to three years in prison. It is clear from the report that there was very little to support the conviction.


The politician was represented by a solicitor at trial. Her co-defendant represented himself.


The Court of Appeal (before which each appellant was represented by counsel) had little hesitation in overturning the convictions.


The Chief Justice described the appellants' experience as 'insupportably painful' and continued: 'Members of the public will undoubtedly, however, query why the crystallisation of the appellants' current position need have awaited a lengthy trial - approximately five weeks, and then an appeal. There is no easy answer to that question, although reference may be made to the extent, and level, of the involvement of lawyers throughout... it is my view that had both appellants been represented by experienced trial counsel throughout, the relevance of all of the evidence would more likely have been addressed with appropriate precision.'


That was a high-profile case and it was a wrongful conviction. There is no reason to suppose that the same will not be happening in all other types of cases the public has legitimate concerns about. If there are wrongful convictions there will also be unmeritorious acquittals.


'Highly talented lawyers of broad common law experience', as the Chief Justice recommended, will only come from a properly funded independent bar.


In light of the government's apparent ability to afford what the bar is demanding (one only has to look at the amount it appears willing to spend on identity cards - which it admits will have a doubtful effect on the fight against crime), the bar's demands seem a small price to pay for a system of criminal justice of the standard the public is entitled to expect.


David O'Mahony is a barrister at Seven Bedford Row in London