The government’s proposal to increase legal aid fees by 30 percent for barristers handling cases with early guilty pleas has drawn sharp criticism from criminal bar leaders, who describe the plan as misguided and potentially damaging to the justice system.
The consultation paper, issued by courts minister Sarah Sackman KC, aims to offer higher remuneration for work carried out at key stages of a case, particularly when defendants plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. No corresponding rise is proposed for barristers involved in longer trials surpassing one day. Sackman defended the measure as intended to reflect the complexity and skill required at crucial stages and to support more efficient case progression.
This proposal arrives amid ongoing efforts to reduce the backlog in crown courts, which currently stands at approximately 80,000 cases. Sackman faces the challenge of managing these delays while contending with the recent decision by Prime Minister Andy Burnham to abandon plans initiated under the previous government to introduce a bench division, which would have allowed single judges to determine guilt without jury trials. Sackman and former justice secretary David Lammy had previously endorsed the controversial plan as essential to easing the court burden.
The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has responded firmly to the proposed fee increase, expressing concern that it reflects an incorrect assumption that financial incentives can encourage early guilty pleas. The CBA stated that such a notion is insulting to criminal barristers and potentially conflicts with their professional ethics. It highlighted that in many cases, the defense does not receive most of the evidence in time for a pre-trial hearing where such pleas are entered, and that the amount of preparatory work conducted at that stage varies significantly.
The association also cautioned that the fee structure might incentivize solicitors’ firms to delay instructing specialist trial counsel until later in proceedings, which could undermine trial preparedness and quality. Additionally, the CBA emphasized that the proposal effectively constitutes a real-terms pay cut for criminal barristers, pointing to the failure to increase daily attendance fees.
The Bar Council, representing 18,000 barristers in England and Wales, echoed these concerns, warning that the fee structure would disproportionately affect cases involving rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO), where defendants are less likely to plead guilty early. Kirsty Brimelow KC, chair of the council, noted existing shortages of criminal law barristers, particularly among senior King’s Counsel, and argued that the proposal could exacerbate retention problems and lead to more adjourned cases, adversely affecting victims.
The Bar Council has recommended a more modest 6 percent increase to fees for early guilty pleas, coupled with a matching rise in daily attendance fees, aligning with earlier advice from the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board. Both the CBA and Bar Council raised concerns about the impact on women barristers, particularly those working in RASSO cases, suggesting the failure to increase pay for longer trials could widen gender pay disparities and prompt experienced lawyers to exit the field.
Brimelow called for the establishment of an independent fees review body to oversee legal aid rates and ensure they keep pace with inflation, describing it as a necessary step to address the broader challenges facing the criminal justice system.