Angry criminal defence solicitors have this week accused barristers of clinching a £17 million windfall for high-cost cases by holding the system to ransom at the expense of legal advice for the most vulnerable members of society.

The deal - hammered out after barristers refused to handle complex cases involving offences such as terrorism and murder - will see a restructuring of the very high-cost criminal cases scheme that will leave counsel with an extra £11 million, plus £6 million for cases that take between 11 and 25 days. The government set up the regime because half of the criminal legal aid budget was being eaten up by 1% of cases.


A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman said it had reached a 'moderate and sensible conclusion' that would also ultimately save £60 million a year.


Bar Council chairman Stephen Irwin QC said it had achieved the best possible outcome in a tough financial climate, although he warned: 'Some [barristers] will not think that the terms are enough.'


But the Criminal Law Solicitors Association accused the government of appeasing the bar at the expense of the civil fund. Chairwoman Helen Cousins said: 'It would appear that direct action and special pleading can quickly lead to a re-ordering of priorities.'


Andrew Keogh - an associate at national crime firm Tuckers, who founded the on-line information service Crimeline - said: 'When firemen want more money, children can burn in their beds. But when barristers want it, the public purse is thrown to the floor for the scavengers to rob it dry.'


Legal Aid Practitioners Group director Richard Miller said he hoped the £17 million would come from sources other than the legal aid fund.


But the Law Society, which is negotiating targeted increases for solicitors and hopes to make an announcement next week, said the amended regime would lead to cost savings in the long run, to the benefit of the civil legal aid fund. 'We will be seeking assurances that this money will be ploughed back into the legal aid budget,' a spokesman said.



See Editorial.