Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Consultation on legal aid fees - negative impact on women

7 replies

Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 13:26

There's a consultation ending 2 Sept on legal aid funding.
It's proposing a 30% increase in fees for a guilty plea which sounds to me crazy. It will have a detrimental effect on women eg Lucy Connolly as well as other side effects.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/women-will-suffer-in-criminal-bar-sustainability-plan/5127765.article

The government’s £34m funding plan to bolster the barrister workforce within the criminal legal aid sector will benefit men more than women and undermine the government’s mission to tackle violence against women and girls, representative groups have warned.

The Ministry of Justice's plan for carving up the cash, which was announced last December, includes a 30% fee uplift for guilty pleas but no increase to the daily fee for attending trials that last more than a day.

The [Bar Council](www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/b387127a-4448-4e84-bb1a0d24a737c207/202608-AGFS-BC-consultation-response-final.pdf)** and [Criminal Bar Association](www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CBA-Response-to-July-2026-Consultation-on-AGFS-v.9.1.pdf)**

point out in their consultation responses that guilty pleas are less common in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences and these trials are often done by female barristers. By contrast, guilty pleas are common in drug offences and these trials are often done by male barristers.

The CBA said: ‘Bearing in mind the government’s avowed intent to focus on tackling violence, sexual violence and abuse of women and girls, this proposal is likely to have a disastrous effect in driving ever more practitioners out of RASSO work which in turn will increase the backlog in these cases, cause further victim attrition, and cause victims to suffer attritional delay.'

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 19:51

IwantToRetire · 28/08/2026 19:10

Will read up on it later, but would have thought just on the basis of proper unbiased representation such a proposal is unacceptable.

In any circumstances.

Show quote history

Yes I agree.

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 28/08/2026 19:19

Okay so the problem is the existing system conflates preparation work and court time, instead of doing what has been suggested a fair system where preparation work it paid for whatever plea.

And that trial time is pad for.

I understand this is what many practioners want.

Not this tweeking of "the bundle system".

IwantToRetire · 28/08/2026 19:10

Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 18:54

That is the objective. The point is they are suggesting an increase in fees if there is a guilty plea. Sex offenders are less likely than other groups to plead guilty (higher chance of getting away with it). This could lead to lawyers avoiding these cases in favour of those that are more likely to be persuaded to plead guilty and an therefore an increase in waiting times

Show quote history

Will read up on it later, but would have thought just on the basis of proper unbiased representation such a proposal is unacceptable.

In any circumstances.

Original poster
Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 19:09

From the Criminal Bar Associations submission to the consultation.

This proposal will disproportionately prejudice practitioners in areas of criminal practice where workflow is focussed on the conduct of trials – most notably Rape and Serious Sexual Offence [RASSO] cases, and those involving vulnerable victims where defendants rarely plead Guilty.

In written evidence to Parliament in May 2024, the CBA identified chronic AGFS
underfunding as the direct cause of a counsel-shortage crisis which was then driving record levels of ineffective trials. 76 Crown Court trials in 2018/19 were adjourned for want of a defence advocate. The figure was 25 for cases that lacked a prosecution advocate. By March 2026 those figures had increased dramatically to 298 and 374
respectively. Of these cases, in 2018/9 only 159 were RASSO cases. By 2026 this figure had risen to 165 RASSO cases10- an 11-fold increase.
Of these cases 84 related to adult
rape and 25 to child rape. The CBA was explicit that the September 2022 uplift had not resolved the “alarming exodus of criminal barristers from publicly funded work.”
27. That “alarming exodus” of criminal barristers from publicly funded work has, amongst other things, had significant impact on the backlog in RASSO cases. In 2019 the RASSO backlog stood at 3058 cases, it now stands at 15,373. The backlog in adult rape cases stood at 573 it now stands at 4896 cases. The backlog in child rape cases stood at
489, but now stands at 201711. Unless further investment is made across the Bar, we will fail to generate the advocates of the future to conduct these very difficult and wearing trials. This directly undermines the Government’s manifesto pledge to halve violence towards women and girls.

OP posts:
Original poster
Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 18:54

IwantToRetire · 28/08/2026 18:48

I may be wrong but isn't the increase in fees to ensure that more Barristers take up legal aid work. ie to make sure those doing legal aid work get properly paid and that those needing legal aid can be sure of getting a competent legal representative in Court?

Show quote history

That is the objective. The point is they are suggesting an increase in fees if there is a guilty plea. Sex offenders are less likely than other groups to plead guilty (higher chance of getting away with it). This could lead to lawyers avoiding these cases in favour of those that are more likely to be persuaded to plead guilty and an therefore an increase in waiting times

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 28/08/2026 18:48

Imnobody4 · 28/08/2026 13:26

There's a consultation ending 2 Sept on legal aid funding.
It's proposing a 30% increase in fees for a guilty plea which sounds to me crazy. It will have a detrimental effect on women eg Lucy Connolly as well as other side effects.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/women-will-suffer-in-criminal-bar-sustainability-plan/5127765.article

The government’s £34m funding plan to bolster the barrister workforce within the criminal legal aid sector will benefit men more than women and undermine the government’s mission to tackle violence against women and girls, representative groups have warned.

The Ministry of Justice's plan for carving up the cash, which was announced last December, includes a 30% fee uplift for guilty pleas but no increase to the daily fee for attending trials that last more than a day.

The [Bar Council](www.barcouncil.org.uk/static/b387127a-4448-4e84-bb1a0d24a737c207/202608-AGFS-BC-consultation-response-final.pdf)** and [Criminal Bar Association](www.criminalbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/CBA-Response-to-July-2026-Consultation-on-AGFS-v.9.1.pdf)**

point out in their consultation responses that guilty pleas are less common in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences and these trials are often done by female barristers. By contrast, guilty pleas are common in drug offences and these trials are often done by male barristers.

The CBA said: ‘Bearing in mind the government’s avowed intent to focus on tackling violence, sexual violence and abuse of women and girls, this proposal is likely to have a disastrous effect in driving ever more practitioners out of RASSO work which in turn will increase the backlog in these cases, cause further victim attrition, and cause victims to suffer attritional delay.'

I may be wrong but isn't the increase in fees to ensure that more Barristers take up legal aid work. ie to make sure those doing legal aid work get properly paid and that those needing legal aid can be sure of getting a competent legal representative in Court?