Bar Council Meeting 15 March 2008
Minutes of the Bar Council Meeting
Held on Saturday 15 March 2008
In The Parliament Chamber, Inner Temple
Present:
Tim Dutton QC - Chairman
Desmond Browne QC - Vice-Chairman
Andrew Mitchell QC -Treasurer
David Hobart - Chief Executive
1. Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from the Attorney General, Gary Burrell QC, Tony Cross QC, Peter Joyce QC, Nicholas Green QC, Duncan Matthews QC, Sally O’Neill QC, Adrienne Page QC, Jonathan Small QC, Lucy Theis QC, Michael Todd QC, Mirza Ahmad, Tricia Howse, Taryn Lee, Fenner Moeran, Hefin Rees and Kevin Toomey.
2. Approval of the Minutes
The minutes of the 26 January 2008 Bar Council meeting were approved, subject to a change to the first para on page 6. ‘Richard Atkins claimed that Circuit members already made the effort to communicate’ should now read ‘Richard Atkins drew Council’s attention to the fact that Circuit members already made the effort to communicate’.
3. Matters Arising
No matters arose.
4. Statement by the Chairman
The Chairman spoke of his ambassadorial role for the profession. He had addressed the Presidents of the European Bars in Vienna on two issues. He had warned about the risks of commoditising legal services by block contracting, or by using PCT or BVT, with its implications for quality and client choice. And he had highlighted the risks to reputation and ethics caused by CFAs and claims intermediaries, and the damage caused principally to the solicitors, by the activities that came in the wake of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The French had observed, somewhat surprisingly and flamboyantly, that justice should be more accessible to the middle classes. More accessible, perhaps, than to les sans culottes.
The Chairman had lectured widely, to the Inns on the Legal Services Act, and to students in Nottingham, UCL, and Kent. He had participated in the hugely successful Bar Mock Trial final in Liverpool, which was the culmination of the efforts of 200 state schools and 2000 students. In the past 17 years, some 30000 school pupils had gained insight into the law, and tested their skills, as part of the annual BMT.
Our work to influence the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill would be covered by the Vice-Chairman later in the agenda. The Chairman expressed personal thanks to Lord Thomas for the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Kingsland for the Tories, and to the many peers who had argued for sensible changes to the Bill. The Chairman had started an initiative for better liaison with the government on IT issues in the courts, and had contributed to the work of the JAC by supporting an active diversity outreach programme. The fall in the number of BME applicants for Silk and Recorderships had prompted him to set up Circuit Mentors to advise and encourage potential applicants. The Chairman had also worked with the ADR committee, and next year’s President of the Law Society, to arrange an ADR symposium later in the year. Regular meetings with the Law Society kept our relationship in good shape.
The International Committee (IC) would present a three-year strategy to a future Bar Council meeting. The Chairman was keen to build up the Bar’s influence in an increasingly global market for legal services. To that end he would be leading a delegation to Dubai, Qatar and Bahrain; two of the three had established English legal systems. The IC was developing a modern arbitration model, and the IC and the European Committee were working closely together. The Chairman had welcomed delegations from China and Tanzania, and had given talks to them on the Bar and the judiciary. In May the Bar Council would open a new small office in Brussels, with facilities for visiting barristers.
The formation of the Member Services Department, agreed at the last Bar Council meeting, was underway. Progress on appointments would be reported to the Bar Council. The need to ensure better co-ordination between the Inns, Circuits and SBAs in the delivery of post-qualification training was being addressed by Jonathan Hirst QC and a working group. Volunteers to join the group were welcome, with work expected to pick up in April.
As ever, the woes of public funding appeared to dominate the legal landscape. The Government intended to reduce spending on legal aid and the CPS by some 3.5% in real terms for the duration of the 3-year spending round until March 2011. The Chairman noted that legal aid accounted for £2bn out of the public spending total of £589bn, amounting to an average annual spend of £34 per head. Adverse comparisons with other countries took no account of the related costs and considerable benefits of the adversarial framework of our legal system. However, it was clear from the Guardian’s Criminal Justice summit in early March that penal policy in this country is a shambles, with the result that a 50% increase in prison population since 1995 has led to no equivalent increase in legal aid to provide the necessary representation. The cutbacks in the CPS require them to find £60m in savings by 2011. CPS data is now available to Professor Martin Chalkley, whose analysis is assisting our various meetings with the CPS. On the HCA front there are still problems, but it is important to remember that the CPS-employed barristers need our support as much as the self-employed Bar. Their work is governed by our common Code of Conduct, and the Chairman intended to speak soon at meetings with the 800 CPS barristers. The Chair of the Advocacy Liaison Group (ALG) was now Simon Bourne-Arton QC, and he would address the difficult balance the CPS faces in maintaining high quality, and achieving their 25% targets.
The Chairman’s press activity remained high. He had spoken twice on Radio 4 in the past week, and had concentrated on the dangers of the Government’s monopoly powers of purchase. He had written articles for The Lawyer and The Gazette, and had been offered an op-ed piece in the Daily Mirror. He re-emphasised the need for better communication within the profession, including regular reports from the Circuits.
The Bar Council had assembled a heavyweight team to respond to the BSB consultation on the future regulation of ABS. The Chairman invited comments from any members, to meet the deadline of 17 April for GMC, and 10 May for the next Bar Council meeting.
With the future of VHCCs still unresolved, the Chairman took some comfort that neither the OFT nor the police had yet knocked on his door. But CBA support for the Chairman might still be required in months to come, albeit pro bono. The extended closing date to become a Panel A participant in VHCCs was imminent, following which the picture should become clearer. It was clear that Jack Straw and Lord Hunt were attracted by the need to work up a better long-term scheme, but that left unresolved the short-term problem. The Chairman would continue to keep the profession fully informed on any progress.
Sir Ivan Lawrence QC reminded the Chairman that the DPP had given an undertaking at a Bar meeting with the CPS that they would limit their encroachment on the work of the self-employed Bar to 10%. The Chairman believed that any such undertaking had long since been overtaken by events, and that today’s targets for each area were some 20-25% by volume. The DPP stated that he would not compromise quality to meet targets. It would be for the ALG to resolve minor disputes at local level. It appeared that the percentage of in-house activity was stabilising. The line to take was clear for the Bar’s participants in CPS/Bar meetings: all barristers should comply with the Code of Conduct.
John Cooper congratulated the Chairman on the work done so far in developing a better regime for VHCCs. He then illustrated the quality failings experienced by in-house CPS advocates by recounting the omission of administrative staff to inform a CPS HCA that he was due to appear in the Court of Appeal to deal with an appeal against conviction. The sympathetic action of the recorder at Snaresbrook to release the HCA to go to the Court of Appeal eventually saved the day.
5. Bar Council Members 2008
The meeting noted the list of Bar Council members. The latest membership list of the Bar Council is attached at Annex A.
6. Kennedy
The Chairman introduced the topic by reminding members of the lively governance debate at the January Bar Council meeting, in which a number of reservations had been expressed about enhancing the representation of SBA members at the expense of directly elected members. The Chairman invited Sir Paul Kennedy to draw out the significant features of his report.
Sir Paul reminded the meeting of the background to his review of Bar Council representation. In the wake of successive changes in the size and shape of the Bar Council over the past 20 years, the present Bar Council structure had been settled on by the Alexander Review in 2000. One of Lord Alexander’s recommendations, agreed in 2001, was the need for a quinquennial review. This prompted the Chairman of the Bar in 2006 to invite Sir Paul Kennedy to consider the extent of any changes needed to the Bar Council, so as best to represent subscribers and strengthen the Bar Council’s claim to be the unitary Regulator of the Bar. The Review was to include the proportionality of representation for groups within the Bar, and was to consider the Bar Council’s relationship with COIC in the light of the new regulatory model for the Bar.
The Review Working Group had concluded in May 2007 that the Bar Council was, generally speaking, effective. Notably however the Review had also concluded that the Bar Council would be more representative of the profession if there was increased representation for some SBAs, roughly balanced by a reduction in directly elected members. Candidates seeking direct election should be strongly discouraged from belonging to a slate, and should be elected by “first past the post” rather than by STV.
Sir Paul noted that these latter recommendations had proved contentious at a Bar Council meeting in September 2007. An implementation working group chaired by Nick Lavender QC had been established to make proposals for the implementation of the non-contentious proposals, and to assist the Bar Council in its consideration of the contentious proposals.
Sir Paul contrasted the ease of dealing with the structure of a small, coherent organisation, where everyone knows everyone, with the demands of a larger organisation where special measures are needed to cater for groups, e.g., SBAs and Circuits, which had elected representatives. To represent fully an organisation comprising only 300 Criminal practitioners, 300 Family practitioners and 300 Chancery practitioners might require only a total of say, 12 elected members. But the Bar Council needed additionally to represent individuals and smaller groups with niche practices, and hence it was inevitable that those SBAs seeking additional influence would back specified candidates against individuals seeking election. The question had been raised as to why the Bar Council needed to remain so large in a regulatory world that had taken 40% of its former functions. On the one hand, the Bar Council had no routine executive functions – which belonged to the Chairman and the GMC - and had been described as cumbersome. But, on the other, there were no significant savings to be made by cutting its size, or the size of its several committees.
Turning directly to the contentious recommendations, the Review Group had questioned whether or not the SBAs provide effective representation, and had concluded that they do. Moreover the majority of the Group felt that, because of the trend to increased specialisation of barristers, greater SBA representation was more important than increasing the number of directly-elected members. Having made that judgement, it then became a question of updating the representative proportions using the ‘Blackburne’ criteria at Annex B para 4.29. Sir Paul noted that the Chairman had written to the SBAs to seek their views on representation, and that broadly the SBAs were content with their present representation. Nonetheless, the Group had believed that relatively more directly elected members would lead to over-representation of the SBAs’ interests, given the effect of slates on direct elections. In questioning whether the Bar Council really needed 54 directly elected members, “beware the backdoor of the slate” had been the guiding principle in the contentious proposal to strongly discourage slates. The close relationship between these issues was demonstrated further by the belief that the STV method favoured the slates, inasmuch the transferable votes from slated candidates were less likely to go to independent or minority candidates.
Frank Abbott argued for an increase in Circuit representation, but Sir Paul observed that no such argument had been heard by his Group. He had misgivings that additional Circuit representatives would actually attend Bar Council meetings. Frank Abbot was clear that additional Circuit members would be required to attend. Both Ken Craig and Matt Kelly QC were hostile to any move away from an STV method, and believed that there had been insufficient evidence to justify the Group’s recommendation. Ken Craig sought an assurance that no change to Bar Council voting methods would be made without a specific proposal for Bar Council to debate. Matt Kelly QC questioned whether the Chairmen of SBAs would, in effect, be imposed on the Bar Council. Greg Dickinson QC queried the non-contentious measure that obliged some ex-officio members to appoint an alternate, in the event that the member knew in advance that he/she would be unable to attend. Sir Paul confirmed that the Review Group thought the advantages of having an alternate outweighed the disadvantage that the alternate would be less familiar with the issues. Sir Ivan Lawrence QC distinguished the South Eastern Circuit in that it was less homogeneous and less coherent than the provincial Circuits. In that sense, direct elections to the Bar Council were relatively more important.
The Chairman confirmed that no decisions had been taken on the four contentious recommendations, and that further specific proposals would be brought to the next Bar Council meeting.
The Bar Council agreed that the Property Bar Association met the ‘Blackburne Criteria’, and hence that the Property Bar Association should have a single representative on the Bar Council.
Post Meeting Note. The Bar Council will be invited to approve a further amendment to the Bar Council Constitution to implement this decision.
The Bar Council approved the Implementation Group’s proposals to implement the non-contentious recommendations (attached to the agenda at Annex B, Chapter 2) by means of those amendments to the Bar Council Constitution at Annex B, Appendix A.
The Bar Council also noted approvingly the work of the Implementation Group on those other recommendations that did not require a change to the Bar Council Constitution, at Annex B, Chapter 5.
Post Meeting Note. The Chairman and Chief Executive would provide a progress report on the implementation of these measures in March 2009.
The Chairman expressed the Bar Council’s gratitude to Sir Paul Kennedy and his Review Group for the thorough work. The very fact of the lively debate was testimony to the difficulty of reaching a lasting consensus on some crucial issues. The Bar Council expressed its thanks to Nick Lavender QC for his prompt and meticulous treatment of the various recommendations, and looked forward to the further scrutiny of proposals to resolve the contentious points.
7. Proposed Amendments To The Standing Orders
The Chairman introduced this item by suggesting that there were three primary issues to be determined. First, the extent to which it was appropriate for the Bar Council to permit the Bar Standards Board to delegate the BSB’s powers and functions. Second, whether, and to what extent, the Bar Council should authorise the Appointments Panel to use its discretion to re-appoint the Chair and Members of the BSB. And third, whether the Bar Council would agree to a proposal from the BSB that the membership of the BSB should be altered to provide for a simple majority of Lay Members.
The Chairman observed that it is usual for regulators to have powers of delegation, for example, the Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority. On the issue of re-appointment to the BSB, it had been envisaged from the outset that there would be in the steady state a rolling programme of appointment, re-appointment and/or retirement over the three-year cycle. The BSB had started its work in January 2006. To retain newfound experience, the conscious decision had been taken in July 2007 to extend the term of some Members from two years to three years. Consequently, at the end of 2008, the Appointments Panel would need to replace or re-appoint 10 Members of the BSB, including the Chair. The Chairman stressed that the Standing Order changes would empower the Appointments Panel with the discretion to re-appoint Members subject to sufficient evidence of satisfactory performance. The Appointments Panel would operate to the high Nolan standards.
The GMC had considered the proposed changes, and had supported the two proposals for a BSB lay majority and to give the Appointments Panel the discretion to re-appoint the Chair and Members of the BSB. However, GMC had concluded that the proposed BSB powers of delegation were too broad and unconstrained. To remedy this latter point George Leggatt QC introduced a Supplemental Note for the Bar Council, attached at Annex B, that aimed to ensure that delegation would take place within a defined structure.
George Leggatt QC addressed a number of questions, having first argued for the need for subsidiarity, whereby the powers in question should be delegated to the lowest appropriate level. He reassured Michael Sherry and Sir Ivan Lawrence QC that the proposals had no relevance to the power to levy charges on the profession or to the levy on CPD providers. Andrew Walker noted that the delegation of powers would include operational decisions and the power to amend the BSB’s constitutional structure, which could lead to the BSB sweeping away barrister majorities on committees, e.g., the Complaints Committee. This would be the end of self-regulation for the profession, and would lead to a more influential BSB with a greater number of paid lay Members. George Leggatt QC agreed that it would be the BSB’s judgement whether to delegate to committees, but this was not an unconstrained power for the BSB. The powers would be used in accordance with the Schedule to the new Regulations. It would be for the Appointments Panel to deal with the required balance between lay and barrister Members, and he reminded the meeting that the profession had greater need of Regulatory barristers than Representative barristers.
Matt Kelly QC proposed that the delegation of powers should be made subject to ratification by the Bar Council, which would brake any “mad rush to UDI”. Alternatively, suggested the Treasurer, delegation should get annual approval by the Bar Council. George Leggatt QC denied any rush to independence, and noted that what the BSB needed was the Bar Council’s support. He believed that periodic reporting to the Bar Council, rather than seeking the Bar Council’s approval, would suffice.
The Chairman concluded that the mood of the meeting was for Bar Council ratification of the delegation of powers, and hence that the proposals should be reconsidered at a later date.
Turning to the second primary issue – Re-appointment – the Chairman highlighted the continuing demand for good barristers to serve on the regulatory committees and the BSB. Clearly, the prospect of another competitive interview would discourage barristers from seeking to extend their pro bono service from three to six years. It was common ground that it had only been an accident of drafting that presently required incumbent lay and professional BSB members to compete for their positions. But this had resulted in the need, as things stood, to consider ten BSB posts for appointment or re-appointment at the end of 2008.
Christopher Graham, a lay member of the BSB, spoke of the creation of the Board in the public interest, and the crucial role of the lay members. All of them had come from successful careers and achievements elsewhere, but it had still been a steep learning curve over the past two years. It had been worth the effort, as the Bar had acknowledged that the credibility of the BSB had played a significant role in the passage of LSA 2007. The lay members had since been through a tough appraisal process, and were looking forward to the imminent challenge of the formation of the Legal Services Board and the Office for Legal Complaints. It seemed rather odd to the lay members that we should look to re-advertise for new, less experienced people. It would be no less expensive to advertise and then to re-appoint existing members.
Ken Craig distinguished the lay members from the Chair of the BSB. He saw no problem with re-appointing lay and barrister members, subject to satisfactory appraisal. However, the post of Chair of the BSB was in a different category: it received substantial remuneration for a much greater time commitment, and it had a broader range of responsibilities. With an eye to the uncertain future, it was insufficient to rely merely on a satisfactory appraisal. The Bar Council should be looking for the best person for the job. There should be no automatic shoehorning of the present post holder into the post for a further three years. This view attracted considerable support from Members.
The Chairman noted that the proposal in Rule 24 of Schedule A to the Regulations called for an approval process. The Appointments Panel would be given the discretion to re-appoint the present incumbent, subject both to a satisfactory appraisal and that it was in the interests of the Board. Ken Craig argued that the Appointments Panel should not be given the discretion to re-appoint without a competition. It should be the Bar Council that decided whether a competition should be held. Notwithstanding the comment of the Vice-Chairman that the post had been advertised as being for ‘three years, and may be renewed’, Ken Craig believed as a matter of principle that it required a competition to identify the best available person for the job.
Christopher Graham advised against this approach, and he characterised a decision to re-advertise as a rejection of the incumbent. It would be a bad time to send a message to the LSB and OLC that the Bar Council did not like an independent regulator. Simon Bourne-Arton QC contrasted the BSB’s limited understanding of legal issues in the early days with its much-improved present performance. He was keen that we avoided burdening the BSB with another difficult learning curve. Martha Cover suggested that paying barristers might encourage more and better applicants for regulatory tasks, and this was something the Chairman thought worthy of future study. Stephen Leslie QC spoke of the wide range of views, and the need for the Bar Council debate to reflect the full range of views of its electorate.
The Chairman invited the meeting to vote on the proposition that Rule 24 in Schedule A should apply to the lay and barrister members of the BSB, excluding consideration of the Chair. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman did not vote, by reason of their membership of the Appointments Panel. The Bar Council agreed unanimously.
The Chairman then invited the meeting to vote on the proposition that Rule 24 to Schedule A should apply to the Chair of the BSB. Again, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman did not vote. The Bar Council agreed, by 30 votes to 17.
Following the vote, Andrew Walker demanded, in accordance with para 10 of Schedule II to the Constitution, that the Bar Council should be balloted to determine whether or not the Bar Council should require a competition for the appointment of the Chair of the BSB for the 3-year period commencing 1 January 2009. The demand for the ballot was supported by 14 Members, thereby satisfying the para 10 criterion. However, Richard Salter QC proposed that the ballot should be rescinded, subject to the Chairman submitting a fresh proposal to the next Bar Council meeting (10 May) addressing the appointment of the Chair of the BSB for the 3-year period commencing 1 January 2009. This proposal was approved by the Bar Council, including the 14 Members who had supported the demand for the ballot. The Chairman agreed to make a new proposal on the issue.
The final issue to be addressed was the proposal that the BSB should have a simple majority of lay Members. George Leggatt QC believed that, in practice, a rebalancing of the lay/professional split would not affect the BSB’s decision-making. But it would have important presentational attractions externally; for example, in Parliament on the role of the complaints handling vis à vis the OLC. A lay majority would offer a considerable advantage to the Bar. Christopher Graham told the meeting that the BSB never polarised on a lay/professional basis, and very rarely decided anything by way of a vote. There would be a huge advantage in having a lay majority, and it would be a quick and easy win for the Bar’s reputation. He contrasted the Bar’s position from that of the Advertising Standards Authority, for which a two-thirds lay majority was required for some decisions. He summarised the virtues of a lay majority as “little things that mean a lot”. The Chairman noted that the GMC had debated the point thoroughly, and had supported a lay majority. David Etherington QC had been impressed with the lay members’ actions in the public interest, which redounded to the Bar’s credit.
Richard Salter QC acknowledged that 99% of the time a lay majority would not matter. But this was a fundamental issue, and would result in the BSB becoming outsiders, and hence that the Bar would be ruled by others. This would be giving away the principle of self-regulation. He observed that it was poor politics to present a fait accompli to the Bar Council. Tom Little recalled that the Bar Council’s original decision to create the BSB had hinged on the need to maintain a Bar majority on the Board and the regulatory committees. It was time to clip the wings of those who would move beyond that. Jeremy Barnett argued to retain the Bar’s majority, and held up the satisfactory example of the Actuaries’ disciplinary processes, where lay members remained in the minority. Jane Giret QC questioned whether any real difficulties had been caused in the past two years by the absence of a lay majority. Alexander Learmonth asked for some evidence to support the assertion that the present professional majority was problematic. George Leggatt QC believed that we could have done better on LSA 2007 with a lay majority.
Stephen Collier likened the proposal to a test of faith, rather than a test of intelligence. There were good arguments either for maintaining the status quo, or perhaps moving to parity between lay and professional numbers. This could be achieved by recruiting a single additional lay member. The position could then be reviewed again, say in two years time.
The Chairman took the mood of the meeting and concluded that there was insufficient support for a proposal to recruit an additional lay member. He agreed to bring the issue back to the next Bar Council meeting.
8. BSB Consultation On ABS
The Chairman invited Members to respond to the BSB’s consultation on the Legal Services Act, which included the intractable topics of partnership, the cab-rank rule, and the regulation of ABS. Responses should come via SBAs, Circuits, or directly to the EA to the Chairman (DAnderson@BarCouncil.org.uk).
9. Very High Cost Criminal Cases
The Chairman gave a brief update on the tortuous process of developing an acceptable VHCC scheme for the future. The Bar wanted to move as rapidly as possible to a scheme priced by reference to events and outcomes, and not based solely on the number of hours worked. The present stumbling block was the LSC’s insistence that any short-term Panel scheme must take into account a 12% reduction in the VHCC envelope. The Chairman believed that, for the short-term at least, VHCCs would be contracted for non-Panel advocates on an ad hoc basis, for which the Bar Council had produced a Protocol. Members were urged to get criminal sets to adopt the Protocol. Tom Little praised the clear and comprehensive written guidance to criminal practitioners in the Chairman’s latest letter to the profession.
10. Best Value Tendering/OCOF
The Vice-Chairman paid tribute to the excellent drafting work of Rebecca Stubbs, and to the contribution of Kim Hollis QC, in the submission of the Bar Council’s response (now on the website) to the LSC’s consultation paper “Best Value Tendering for Criminal Defence Services”. The contributions from Sir Henry Brooke (retired LJ), Kevin Martin (former President of the Law Society), Sir Donald Irvine (former President of the GMC), and the ubiquitous Professor Martin Chalkley, had been invaluable in preparing a balanced piece of work.
Notwithstanding the difficulty in engaging with the elusive Richard Collins from the LSC, the Bar Council continued to press the case that in the absence of Lord Carter’s three safeguards, OCOF was a nonsense, but that with the safeguards in place, OCOF was unnecessary. OCOF would be a building block on the path to Best Value Tendering, which itself was unsuitable to the nature of Crown Court work. The evolution of the RAGFS would be a far more efficient and predictable alternative to keeping the LSC’s costs under control. The Vice-Chairman concluded by reminding the meeting of the Bar Council’s proposal to develop the alternative of tendering ‘units of advocacy service’ wherein each unit was a sensible proxy for events and outcome. This work would continue.
11. Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
The Vice-Chairman gave a brief report on the 57th Criminal Justice Bill to be introduced by the present government. The Bill had two main concerns for the Bar. First, Clause 42 sought to diminish the role of the Court of Appeal to one of a fact-finding body. With the considerable assistance of Lord Kingsland, this clause had now been dropped. Second, Clause 55 (previously 105) dealt with the proposed expansion of the role for non-legally qualified Designated Case Workers. This clause had successfully been limited to the provision of statutory rights for DCWs to appear for summary-only offences in the Magistrates’ Court. We would continue to press for additional limitations to permit DCWs to appear for non-imprisonable summary-only offences in the Magistrates’ Court, and for DCWs to be regulated by an approved regulator. The political context for the passage of this Bill was the implications for the availability of prison places of the threatened strike on 8 May by the prison officers.
12. PAC Report
Charles Hale, the Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee, reminded the meeting that the PAC was now working to the discipline of an action plan. Key elements included (a) the production of a Legal Aid ‘cornerstone’ document to strengthen the Bar’s presentational case in its numerous disputes with the LSC and government on publicly funded issues; (b) the need to further a ‘One Bar’ message, together with the Circuits and the Inns of Court; (c) an outreach programme with Weber Shandwick to engage with the communications’ needs of the Circuits, including local PR training for Circuit barristers, and (d) the development of a 32-page brochure, to include a Guide to Circuits, and to support the arguments for One Bar and its contribution to the public interest.
John Cooper emphasised the importance of the regional press which, unlike the national press, had an insatiable demand for information of relevance to its local readership. It was important to make the effort to get the message to the local press. Charles Hale stressed that the PAC was a Bar resource available to all of the Circuits.
13. International Pro-Bono Principles
The meeting noted that a set of International Pro-Bono principles had been drawn up, to guide barristers when their pro bono work was directed overseas.
14. Any Other Business
The Treasurer highlighted the work being done by the Finance Committee to examine how best the burden of paying for practising certificates should fall on the profession. All members were invited to contribute ideas to the Treasurer.
Michael Sherry questioned the BSB policy on charging for its services. He was concerned that practitioners who had been ill should be granted a waiver from paying charges beyond their control, and he sought clarification of the fees paid by commercial CPD providers and by ‘one-off’ event organisers such as the Circuit branch of an SBA, or the Young Bar Committee.
The Chairman recalled the major contribution to the Criminal Bar made by Anthony Jennings QC who had died recently.
15. Date Of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Saturday 10 May 2008 at 1000 hrs in the Spy Room, Gray’s Inn.
