The Barristers' Strike

 by Fraser Langley

Criminal barristers have recently begun an indefinite strike. This strike is due to the rise in tensions between them and the government, over their differences in opinion over what is an acceptable level of pay for legal aid work. Thus suggesting that the basis of this strike is relatively characteristic of a conventional worker’s strike, but due to the nature of this particular line of work, there are some key factors that make this strike unique. 

Legal aid is the particular line of legal assistance that is provided to people of less fortunate backgrounds. It is for people that cannot afford legal representation, and therefore cannot gain access to the court system. Hence, without legal aid they could not  mitigate their own legal issues within the UK court system. Legal aid is considered to be absolutely vital to the justice system, as it helps to provide access to the legal system to all people. This acts as the foundations of the justice system and is fundamental to the rule of law and democracy, as if not all people have access to their given right of a fair trial, the justice system in the UK would collapse into disrepute. This is in accordance with Article 6 of the Human Rights act, that protects everybody’s right to a lawful and honourable trial, and ensures that all have access to the court system. Likewise, this right to a fair trial clearly states that ‘all persons are equal before courts and tribunals’ and that all people have the right to ‘a fair and public hearing before a competent, independent court or tribunal’. Therefore, due to this particular right’s integral place within the court system of the UK, without legal aid, there cannot be justice in our country, as people that are struggling cannot access their right to a fair trial. So, justice would only be accessible for those that can afford it, which would corrupt the very society that is built upon the key principles of a democratic society, that all are equal before the law. So, when someone cannot afford legal representation, these fundamentals would be wholly undermined, without the implementation of legal aid. This therefore makes this strike incredibly significant, due to the vital importance of legal aid within our justice system, and upholds the fundamental rights of the UK’s court system.

We first observed flickers of this industrial action in early June, as the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), first organised the walk-outs then, but since then, the tension has intensified. Furthermore, this tension has been exacerbated by the deal that the government offered the association, which was almost immediately rejected. This deal in particular offered the Barristers a 15% increase in legal aid fees, however, the key underlying factor to this agreement was that it would not apply to 60,000 cases that were already existent in the court’s backlog, hence the association considered this offer to not be suitable at all. The CBA has firmly stood behind their decision to ask for a 25% pay increase, on account of the ‘decades of underfunding in criminal justice’. Moreover, these strikes has additionally had an extensive influence upon the pay structures of other roles within the legal system, with the Ministry of Justice suggesting that they will provide ‘a further £3 million of funding for case preparation work, a further £4 million for barristers involved in pre-recorded cross-examinations including in rape and sexual offences cases, and £5 million extra for youth court work from 2024.’ These strikes have had an immense knock on effect that has almost seemed to begin a complete reformation of the criminal justice legal system, in terms of pay structure, as we can see from these proposed pay increases. Subsequently, this incentivises more people in legal professions to proceed and advocate for more legal aid and criminal justice cases, due to these cases being made more profitable, hence adding to the virtues of the UK justice system, as it makes the UK court system accessible for all, despite their personal circumstances. 

These factors make this strike particularly significant, as these strikes have brought criminal justice to an almost  standstill, adding to an ever-growing backlog of these cases in the court. 7000 criminal cases are put in front of Crown Court judges each month; meaning that these strikes will add to this backlog significantly, which has mounted huge additional amounts of pressure on the parties relevant to these strikes to come to an agreement that satisfies the Barristers. For example, a Judge at the Old Bailey has apprised that incredibly significant trials, like murder trials, could be postponed for ‘up to a year’ if they do not start on time, due to the strike. Which means that public safety is beginning to be sacrificed, which is highly significant, as public safety is considered to be key in ensuring sustainable and prosperous futures of democratic countries. Equally, despite the precedent, this has not been a sudden thing, as Barristers have clearly been dissatisfied with their pay and the agreements, with numbers of criminal justice cases being taken up reducing year upon year. However, due to these strikes, this has been further accentuated. For example, in just the first three months of this year, ‘370 scheduled trials, for which victims, defendants and witnesses had prepared, were put off because of a shortage of prosecution and defence lawyers - and 48 because of a lack of judges’. These cases were forced to be abandoned before the main strikes even began, so this emphasises this distinctive lack of incentive to take on and support these cases, as it is so difficult for legal firms to make these criminal justice cases lucrative for them, due to significant underfunding in recent years. 

Therefore, we can see the absolute vitality of these strikes being resolved, in order to uphold the UK jurisprudence, as otherwise, justice will not be served to those unable to afford proper legal representation. This would undermine the democracy of the country, as not all people would have the ability to access justice.