Report comment

The proposed ‘no returns’ action was called off on 23 May 2018 following meetings between the CBA and the MoJ. Below is a comparison of what the CBA said they wanted, in relation to AGFS fees, and what the MoJ offered.

What the CBA wanted
Delay the implementation of the reformed AGFS scheme, or suspend its operation, pending further and more detailed consultation as to its impact on the criminal bar and the wider Criminal Justice System.
What the MoJ offered
No delay or suspension.

What the CBA wanted
Amend the scheme to invest in the more complex cases, which have been significantly cut and to invest in the scheme generally. The mechanism for this should allow remuneration for large volume of evidence cases previously described as “PPE” or “paper heavy cases”.
What the MoJ offered
£8 million will be targeted towards the categories of case that lose heavily under the abolition of PPE (fraud, drug and high page sex cases). Significant analysis has taken place of these categories. The scheme is law despite the EDM. Therefore, a structural augmentation will be necessary to benefit those who have lost.
£4.5 million will be targeted towards junior fees (not Silk). It is envisaged that these funds would be utilized in a negotiated way to reflect career progression and sustainability for juniors.

What the CBA wanted
Amend the scheme to include payment for high volumes of disclosed material. This should be reflected in a separate category to ‘special preparation’.
What the MoJ offered
No payments for high volumes of disclosed material.

What the CBA wanted
Commit to a full, costed review of the scheme within 12 months against 2016/17 figures to ascertain whether the scheme achieves its stated aim of ‘cost neutrality’ or whether it is under-funded.
What the MoJ offered
The planned review of the scheme will take place within 18 months.

What the CBA wanted
Commit to an index linked increase in AGFS fees.
What the MoJ offered
There will be a 1 per cent increase in April 2019 across all fees.

Clearly, the only area in which the CBA got anything near its demands was in some immediate payments. The £8m for silks (mainly) and senior juniors involved in ‘paper heavy cases’ is disproportionate compared to the £4.5m for juniors and appears to be a reconstitution of the 10% fee increase silks wanted in the original proposals that the Bar Council AGFS Working Party suggested.
The £4.5m for juniors requires clarification as. “It is envisaged that these funds would be utilized in a negotiated way to reflect career progression and sustainability for juniors.” is meaningless as it stands.

As for the CBA’s insistence on involvement with reforms of the CJS that is such a large, amorphous and complicated problem it’s hard to see the CBA affecting any meaningful changes even in the mid-term – even if they were invited to.

It can't go on like this. There will only be another conflict, sooner or later, and the whole frustrating, tiring, useless cycle will begin again.

Perhaps it's time for the criminal bar to look at a new, empirically different and iconoclastic business model? This one isn't working and no amount of tinkering will make it work.