Judges ‘wrong’ to take position over barrister pay dispute, High Court told – Ealing Times
Judges were “wrong” to express views over the merits of a pay dispute between the Government and lawyers when refusing to keep defendants behind bars ahead of trials hit by strike action, the High Court has been told.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Max Hill KC is challenging decisions made in two separate criminal cases in Bristol and Manchester Crown Courts, where judges refused to extend the custody time limits of three defendants due to face trial.
The judges co…….
Judges were “wrong” to express views over the merits of a pay dispute between the Government and lawyers when refusing to keep defendants behind bars ahead of trials hit by strike action, the High Court has been told.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Max Hill KC is challenging decisions made in two separate criminal cases in Bristol and Manchester Crown Courts, where judges refused to extend the custody time limits of three defendants due to face trial.
The judges concluded that the unavailability of defence barristers, due to ongoing industrial action by members of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) was not a “good and sufficient cause” to keep the defendants locked up on remand while their trials were delayed.
Tom Little KC, representing the DPP, argued at a hearing in London on Monday that the judges’ rulings were “unlawful” and should be quashed.
Criminal defence barristers protesting outside the Houses of Parliament in London in July (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Mr Little said in written submissions that it was “inappropriate for applications for extensions to custody time limits to be determined based on the individual views of judges as to the competing arguments in the dispute”.
He added: “While it is invidious for any view at all to be expressed on the merits of the industrial action, the prospect that judges will reach different conclusions on the issue is one which will lead to inconsistent and unfair results.”
In recent weeks, court hearings across England and Wales have been put off due to the unavailability of some barristers who are taking part in the continuous walkout.
Judge Peter Blair KC, sitting at Bristol Crown Court earlier this month, ruled that the absence of a lawyer arose out of the “chronic and predictable consequences of long term underfunding”, highlighting that the Government had “many, many months” to resolve the pay dispute.
“On the one hand the state demands trials to commence within an applicable custody time limit, and on the other it holds the purse strings for remunerating those who are required under our rule of law to be provided with advocacy services,” he said.
Mr Little argued in written submissions that Judge Tina Landale, who reached the same view in a separate case in Manchester, placed “tacit reliance” on Judge Blair’s ruling, with her judgment’s wording being “either identical or similar”.
He told the court that “properly analysed these two respective decisions involved a view being expressed as to fault”. He added: “In other words this is the Government’s fault.”
“The judges formed a …….
