Share this page!

Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
Apr 11 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
The latest statistics (2020-2021):barristers specialising in criminal law has declined by 10%. In one year.This acceleration of barristers leaving criminal law will continue.Unless there is a substantial immediate uplift in fees. Action of no returns starts today. #action4justice
No returns means that barristers no longer will accept work returned to them by a barrister who is unable to act in the case because- for example-barrister’s other trial has overrun(sick juror/witness etc) & so a clash resulted.Why did 94% of @TheCriminalBar vote for this action?
The independent review of legal aid has been with government since 30 November 2021. It recommended an immediate increase of a minimum of 15% to legal aid per annum. Govt response: “15%” (when shaken down to include inflation & another year on isn’t 15%) on new cases from October
Meaning that the fees will not be received by barrister until end 2023/2024. Backlog means that cases take years to reach completion. The criminal bar will be so under resourced by then that it might not recover.Loss of junior barristers means loss of judges of future.
It means an end of being able to advertise globally the excellence of the justice system (attracting commercial work)It means complainants of sexual offences & other serious crime giving up (as they are now) whilst the calls go out to find barristers to defend & prosecute
& the chance of a trial hovers at around 3 years to reach court (often much longer). It means ongoing lack of judges qualified to hear sexual offences cases as lawyers in criminal justice drain away.And so criminal barristers have been forced to take action. And it starts today.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Kirsty Brimelow QC

Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Kirsty_Brimelow

Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
Jan 14
I represented an 18 yr old who was issued a “superfine” of £10 K.
Alleged breach of the Regs was on 2 May 2021. He had some mates around his house on a weekend night when his parents were away. More came than invited. Police called. They thought there were 30-40 indoors Thread
& outside.Regs: prohibition on organising gathering of more than 30 indoors. 18 yo v. remorseful. He was starting a career which might have closed to him if he hadn’t paid the FPN, then been taken to magistrates court & convicted (no appeal process)Neither he nor family had £10k.
His grandparents were going to pool their pensions to help pay. I worked (unpaid) for the family making written representations and then telephoning to persuade the police to withdraw the £10k FPN.Police who attended said he was “a lovely lad”. But nothing they could do.
Read 5 tweets
Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
Oct 6, 2020
Shameful speech @pritipatel A reminder⬇️

"The Home Office described lawyers representing asylum seekers as “activist”. The intention is inflammatory, but it is also depressingly ignorant. 1/3
thetimes.co.uk/article/kirsty…
The lawyers in the Spain case applied the law and succeeded at court. They are competent.Pulling back the curtain to the Home Office noise reveals an incompetent and unfair system. It inadequately screens people seeking asylum ..2/3
.then does not keep them informed of the claim process until the point of detention for removal.Lawyers are forced to scramble to do their job. In their 7 day window they also do the work of the Home Office by taking steps to assess whether a person is a victim of trafficking.etc
Read 4 tweets
Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
May 28, 2020
Thread Will update blog . Summary of Durham police conclusion is that Dominic Cummings broke the law when he drove to/from Barnard Castle. It’s a confusingly worded statement but they are clear that if he had been stopped on that journey the officer would likely have advised 1/3
him to go back to address in Durham & not moved to enforcement if advice accepted.There is no power of enforcement unless there is a breach of the Regs so it is clear there was a breach. And it’s right that enforcement is a last resort. Durham also found no breach of Regs 2/3
by drive from London to Durham. There are no reasons. My view is this is problematic. The Regs set out that someone could have come to him. The police do state that it is not within their remit to consider if he breached “stay at home” guidance. The clue might be in the title!
Read 7 tweets
Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
May 25, 2020
Thread: #cummings talks about “rules”. There is law & guidance. The law, at that time, prohibited leaving the place where you live without reasonable excuse. (Reg 6(1)) Nothing in law on “exceptional circumstances” with children 1/6
The govt guidance says “stay at home” if you have COVID-19 symptoms. A section on “following advice to best of your ability” if you have children applies to detail of what you do whilst in home as is apparent from “we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.” 2/6
I.e. those set out such as shopping online, cleaning. Section continues: “what we have seen so far is that children with COVID-19 appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance.” Some reassurance perhaps if not all 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Kirsty Brimelow QC Profile picture
Apr 2, 2020
THREAD: A humble attempt to explain why I say there was no power to arrest or charge or prosecute or convict Ms. Dinou under Schedule 21 para 23(1)(a) and (2) of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
1. details of the charge: "you failed to provide BTP officers with your identity or
reasons for your journey; you failed to comply with a requirement imposed under Sch 21
2. "Schedule 21 contains powers relating to "potentially infectious persons" i.e. person who is or may be infected/ contaminated with coronavirus or has been in an infected area 14 days before
3. Ms Dinou was not considered to be potentially infectious. This is key.
4. Plus powers re. a potentially infectious person incl:
i. where a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect person is potentially infectious s/he can direct or remove a person to a place
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(