Two judges were 'wrong' to bail defendants facing trial for serious crimes due to barristers' strike action, the High Court was told.
An alleged rapist, two men accused of causing grievous bodily harm and an alleged sexual offender have been released on conditional bail due to the unavailability of defence barristers taking part in industrial action. Under the law, defendants can be held in custody for almost six months after being charged, while awaiting their trial.
Judges often allow prosecutors to extend the amount of time a defendant remains in custody awaiting trial if there is a 'good and sufficient' reason. But three judges across Greater Manchester and Bolton have refused to extend the period, known as 'custody time limits'.
Trials in all three cases had been due to take place this month, but had to be abandoned because the defendants had no lawyer to represent them due to barristers taking industrial action in a row over Legal Aid, the scheme which pays lawyers for publicly funded work.
The issue of whether two judges - in Manchester and Bristol - were right to bail defendants in two separate criminal cases is now being heard in the High Court.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Max Hill KC is challenging the decisions after the judges said that the unavailability of criminal barristers and not a 'good and sufficient cause' to keep the defendants locked up. Tom Little KC, representing the DPP, argued at a hearing in London on Monday that the judges’ rulings were 'unlawful' and should be quashed.
Mr Little said in written submissions that it was 'inappropriate for applications for extensions to custody time limits to be determined based on the individual views of judges as to the competing arguments in the dispute'. He added: "While it is invidious for any view at all to be expressed on the merits of the industrial action, the prospect that judges will reach different conclusions on the issue is one which will lead to inconsistent and unfair results."
In recent weeks, court hearings across England and Wales have been put off due to the unavailability of some barristers who are taking part in the continuous walkout. Judge Peter Blair KC, sitting at Bristol Crown Court earlier this month, ruled that the absence of a lawyer arose out of the 'chronic and predictable consequences of long term underfunding', highlighting that the Government had 'many, many months' to resolve the pay dispute.
"On the one hand the state demands trials to commence within an applicable custody time limit, and on the other it holds the purse strings for remunerating those who are required under our rule of law to be provided with advocacy services," he said.
Mr Little argued in written submissions that Judge Tina Landale, who reached the same view in a separate case in Manchester, placed 'tacit reliance' on Judge Blair’s ruling, with her judgment’s wording being 'either identical or similar'.
He told the court that 'properly analysed these two respective decisions involved a view being expressed as to fault'. He added: "In other words this is the Government’s fault."
"The judges formed a view which they expressed in the course of their ruling which was one we submit should not have been formed," Mr Little added.
There had been a 'total failure to engage with a bespoke case-specific approach to the facts before the judge', Mr Little claimed. Mr Little said the DPP was not making arguments about the 'merits' of the pay dispute but was seeking 'clarity and some certainty' with the legal challenge.
Mr Hill has previously described the issues raised by the cases at the centre of his challenge as 'a matter of the greatest importance to the running of the criminal justice system in the next few weeks'. The court heard from Mr Little that it had 'simply not been possible' to bring a challenge over other court decisions, but he argued that criticisms over the Manchester and Bristol rulings had 'a general application to the correct approach that should be taken in other cases'.
In written submissions, Mr Little said the DPP 'takes no position on the adequacy or otherwise of remuneration of those carrying out defence legal aid work'. "It is submitted that the judges in both cases appeared to take a clear position on the dispute, and that to do so was both wrong in principle and unnecessary to their decisions whether the custody time limits should be extended," he said.
David Hughes, representing the Bristol defendant – who is an interested party to the High Court challenge, along with the two defendants in the Manchester case – said Judge Blair said 'nothing … that was wrong, improper or inaccurate' and made 'no error of law'.
"He was making that ruling from a position of considerable knowledge and experience, being the resident judge at a busy court centre … and he was entitled to make that decision based on that knowledge and experience," Mr Hughes said.
The barrister said Judge Blair was not expressing a view but 'just expressing what the reality of the situation is'. including that the dispute has been going on for many months.
He also highlighted the fact there was a backlog in the criminal justice system before Covid restrictions, which exacerbated it, and said the circumstances were 'predictable'. Mr Hughes added: "This was a well-known problem that was going to occur, not only in this case, but in courts all over England and Wales very widely."
Benjamin Knight, representing one of the Manchester defendants, said in written submissions that Judge Landale 'did not stray into assessing the merits of the CBA action' but had noted it was 'foreseen and foreseeable … that such a problem would arise'.
Barry Grennan, representing the other Manchester defendant, told the court judges faced making decisions over cases that had 'absolutely no chance whatsoever of being heard within the custody time limits' and argued that the barrister pay dispute had become a 'predictable and persistent problem' that dated back to April.
Mr Grennan argued: "The idea this was a sudden and unforeseen action … is highly misleading."
The barrister also said it was clear before the judges’ rulings that the majority of the criminal bar was to withdraw their services and the Government therefore knew by that point that 'unless something was done … the courts were essentially looking at potential standstill', as well as a 'rapid increase' in the backlog.
He said defendants in the Manchester case could have faced up to 10 months in custody before their trial was heard. Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain will give their ruling later this week.
Read more of today's top stories here
READ NEXT:
- Gunshots blasted at house in Manchester in 'targeted' attack
- Emergency worker diagnosed with PTSD after helping Manchester Arena victims 'denied compensation'
- The best restaurants and bars in Manchester revealed at the Manchester Food and Drink Festival Awards 2022
- BBC Strictly's Matt Goss reunited with pet dog after moving back to the UK as he's flooded with support over 'nasty' criticism
- Police appeal for information after large group spray graffiti on walls of Islamic Centre in 'politically motivated' incident
