‘Pay criminal barristers properly’, says PM hopeful Nadhim Zahawi
New Chancellor wins place in next round of leadership contest, along with AG Braverman and law grad Badenoch

Nadhim Zahawi has made it into the knock-out stages of the Conservative Party leadership contest after voicing his support for hard-up criminal barristers.
Touting his “five pledges” if elected leader on BBC Breakfast yesterday, the Chancellor pledged to: “put more criminals behind bars. The police do a great job catching criminals — violent crime, and of course cyber crime is a big thing — but the infrastructure that sits behind that, our courts, are creaking. We need to make sure that we unlock that pipeline and get more criminals behind bars — including, by the way, paying criminal barristers properly”.
Goodness me. He gets that barristers are part of the infrastructure of delivering an effective criminal justice system. What a pledge.
Can the other candidates match it? #Action4Justice https://t.co/6ELMrwxRVJ— 🌻Mary Aspinall-Miles🌻 (@MAMBarLife) July 12, 2022
The Stratford-upon-Avon MP would offer “an above-inflation pay rise to criminal barristers in an attempt to end strike action”, the Times (£) reported yesterday. That’s along with a £215 million increase in spending on the courts, for a total of £1 billion extra on “courts, legal services and the criminal bar”, according to Zahawi supporter Amanda Milling MP.
But Zahawi has also floated the idea of a 20% cut in departmental budgets. HM Courts and Tribunals Service accounts for about one fifth of Ministry of Justice spending, so increasing its budget while expecting an overall saving appears ambitious.
Criminal barristers are withdrawing their labour from Monday to Thursday, the third week of their walkout. The Criminal Bar Association reported a “constructive” meeting with new justice minister Sarah Dines but urged members to keep up the pressure.
The next round of the leadership race takes place today, with candidates needing the votes of 30 Conservative MPs to progress. Voting closes at 3.30pm with results announced shortly after.
Attorney General Suella Braverman (who dished out the gong for Best Journal at the Legal Cheek Awards earlier this year) and Birkbeck law grad Kemi Badenoch are also in the running.
A Spectator magazine tally of who MPs are supporting puts Rishi Sunak way out in front, but the final choice will be made by party members from a shortlist of two.
For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:
Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter
8 Comments
Card carrier
If any of the candidates support cutting the 45% rate then I’ll vote for them in the run off. Otherwise the one that offers to spend the least and cut basic taxes the least will get my vote.
MC ass
Ah yes, tax cuts and even more vandalism of public services. What a great way to curb inflation.
Are Tories even pretending to be economically literate any more? I mean, they never were, but at least they pretended.
CrimBo
Weasel words?
What would really unclog the pipe would be reforming the myriad of legislation that puts such an administrative burden on the Police and the CPS because they have to do the defence’s job for them on very stretched resources and trials get delayed with complaints about disclosure etc.
Seen Loads
I don’t think law students fully understand how much money some London commercial barristers make.
I know one that spent £60,000 on a family summer holiday to the USA.
It is absolutely within the realm of these people to contribute towards a collective fund to pay for criminal pupillages.
Commenter Discovers Taxation
Wow that’s a good point, maybe there should even be some kind of system like that for the whole country.
as dB thhj
And why exactly would they do that? Why not bankers (they make more)? Or CEOs? Or film stars? Sorry but what exactly is the logical argument for commercial barristers to subsidise criminal barristers? “They’re both lawyers”? That’s just idiotic. While we’re at it, let’s put a special tax on NHS consultants and use it to increase nurses pay.
Bob
But why should they? It is not their obligation to fund the legal representation of others or to support the incomes of others with whom they share a profession.
Anong
Few days.
Long time in politics.
Comments are closed.