Boycott of new legal aid rate continues

Barristers vowed last night to continue their boycott of a new criminal legal aid payment scheme, an act of defiance which may force judges to release defendants accused of some of the most serious murders and terrorist offences.

Their determination hardened after receiving a letter from the chairman of the Bar, Stephen Irwin QC, telling them that a government-commissioned review of the "very high cost criminal cases" scheme had failed so far to resolve their concerns, and no changes were likely before the end of June.

The constitutional affairs secretary, Lord Falconer, promised the review, with a deadline of yesterday, after barristers throughout England and Wales refused to sign contracts introduced on April 1 to act for defendants in the most expensive criminal cases, including terrorism, murder, fraud, and drug trafficking.

About 90% of the criminal bar is thought to have joined the unofficial boycott, which has plunged the criminal justice system into crisis.

Defendants are going unrepresented and it is feared that some may have to be released because of strict time limits on how long they may be kept in custody before being brought to trial.

Four very high cost cases, including two murder cases, are due to go to trial in June with defendants who are unrepresented.

The Bar claims that the scheme cuts their rate of pay by 40-50% in some cases, and imposes bureaucratic requirements which hamper them in conducting a proper defence.

Lord Falconer has offered to cut back on the bureaucracy, but negotiations on pay have reached an impasse, statisticians on both sides disagreeing how research on a sample of cases should be conducted.

No resolution is possible before the middle of June and no changes to the scheme before the end of June, Mr Irwin told barristers in his letter.

This weekend ministers will consider a Bar proposal to allow the four June trials to go ahead and have the barristers' fees assessed by the court after the trial.

Some barristers have been working free of charge in the run-up to trials, but they could not be expected to do a five- or six-week trial without pay, said Andrew Hall QC, chairman of the Bar's remuneration committee.

If Lord Falconer rejected the proposal for some reason of principle, he said, "I hope he's not going to hold the Bar responsible for the fact that people may go unrepresented.

If it's not acceptable, I'm afraid I don't know what will happen."

The Department of Constitutional Affairs said: "Ministers and officials will be working closely with all concerned on the issues the report examines with the clear aim of finding a conclusion which is acceptable to all sides."

The contract covers crown court trials lasting at least five weeks and costing £150,000 or more per defence team.

Barristers argue that the fees for their advocacy work at trial, if translated into an hourly rate, are less than the rate paid to a junior solicitor taking notes in court.

They also object to the requirement to get authorisation from a contract manager to do any extra work, such as reading new material disclosed by the prosecution.