.
Criminal Bar at war over QASA
The judgment in a complex case between four criminal barristers and their regulators is expected in December (see page 3 of this issue). The barristers have challenged the proposed imposition of the quality assurance scheme for advocates (QASA) by the Legal Services Board (LSB) in a judicial review. Both the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority were joined as interested parties on the side of the LSB.
Barristers object to the central role judges will play in assessing the standard of advocacy in court. When the judicial review was launched in September, Nigel Lithman QC, the Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA’s) chairperson, said: ‘the idea an advocate can act fearlessly with one eye on his client and the other on the judge is an ugly notion’ and ‘QASA offends fundamental issues of justice’.
Nigel Lithman QC said that the CBA felt that it had no option but to join the action, which was brought by barristers Christopher Hewertson, David Howker QC, Katherine Lumsdon and Rufus Taylor, because the claimants believed that the LSB and BSB had not been listening to their concerns about QASA. As the representative body for solicitor advocates, the Law Society also joined the action as an interested party.
In addition to arguments around the role of judges in the proposed QASA process, the claimants are also arguing that the scheme breaches article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to provide adequate appeal rights and is a disproportionate means of achieving its objectives as there is no evidence of a need for it. The claimants are represented by solicitors’ firm Baker & McKenzie and their counsel includes Dinah Rose QC and Tom de la Mare QC, all of whom are acting on a pro-bono basis.