"Crime doesn't pay. There's no future in it." Oh really?

A while ago I chanced upon a blawg and left what I now agree was a rather rash, and possibly rude, statement (hey no ones perfect). Although the manner in which I made the point was incorrect I still stand by the point. I was subsequently asked by the blawg's author Richard Murtagh to elaborate upon the point. Unfortunately something always seemed to get in the way, but Richard has posted his argument here.

I am sure that any readers of this blawg will be more than welcome to comment on what he has written. Unfortunately I did not realise this until I sent off what was supposed to be my opening statement so the text below is not strictly in response to the arguments made. I will do this later. However I will make a single point that as you will see I have grappled with the issues rather than resorting to the rather base tactic of attacking my adversary's character. So here is my answer to why Criminal Law does matter, and whether or not it pays depends on principle and the definition of what pay is.

Why the Criminal Bar is still a place for the “aspiring independent advocate”.

As the economic situation in this country continues to grow gloomier and gloomier, it is clear that public spending will decrease across the board, regardless of which political party triumphs at the next general election. This is a process which has already had a far reaching and profound effect on those parts of the Bar which rely on legal aid work and it is a generally held opinion (also held by the author of this blog), that the Criminal Bar is no longer a realistic destination for the “aspiring independent advocate”. This article will seek to challenge this assumption and show that for the true advocate, the Criminal Bar is the destination of choice.

Firstly it is clear that the remuneration for a Criminal barrister has fallen in recent years. On a recent mini pupillage with a highly respected specialist criminal set in London I was informed that the average junior of between one and two years call after pupillage will expect to achieve a gross sum of around £40000 per annum. When various deductions are taken into account this would amount to around £25000 per annum. Now this is certainly not a stellar sum by any means but whether or not it is sufficient to make the criminal bar worthwhile depends on two things. The importance of high earnings over job satisfaction, and what we compare this salary against.

To deal with the latter point first, this sum is unquestionably meagre compared to the fantastic amounts achievable at the Chancery and Commercial Bar. Indeed, as shown by the Times this week a new pupil at Essex Court Chambers will receive a pupillage award of £60000. But it is illogical to compare these two parts of the profession. One is paid by either exceptionally rich individuals or large, multi-million pound companies, and the other is paid out of the public purse. It is also important to remember that £25000 is still a sustainable wage. Many graduates will be on comparable sums during these early years, the only difference being that junior barristers will have larger debts to pay due to the cost of qualifying. This however is an argument for lowering qualification costs (a point on which I think most would agree), rather than avoiding the Criminal Bar.

As a side issue it is also important to mention that many chambers are now diversifying into other areas closely associated with the criminal bar, and with a large amount of success. In this way a skilled and talented advocate can expect to achieve a much higher rate of remuneration.

When it comes to the former point I believe that the argument can be stated no more simply than this:

If representing clients in court using the skill of oral advocacy is your reason for wishing to come to the Bar, then there is no better destination than the Criminal Bar. Nowhere else at the Bar does courtroom advocacy play a bigger part in a barrister’s career than at the Criminal Bar.

If your desire is to grapple with intricate areas of law all day and earn astronomical sums form the start of your career, then clearly it is not. Other reasons why it is still an attractive choice include the palpable sense of helping people in what will most likely be one of the most bewildering, terrifying, and important moments in their life. It is also a vocation which repeatedly tests the mettle and skills of an advocate right from the first appearance in court. Quick thinking, a keen sense of tactics, and mastery of the facts must be utilised in the high pressure environment of the court, at all times knowing that the very liberty of your client depends upon your performance.

And this final point is at the crux of why the Criminal Bar must remain an attractive prospect for the bright and talented. The right to liberty is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, as is the right to a fair trial. Yet in this era of supposed importance for human rights we have seen an executive and legislature that have been anything but respectful. Anti-terrorism legislation has sought to disregard the doctrine of habeas corpus, holding suspects for days on end without charge and no recourse to legal advice. The state is ever more intrusive and seeks to hold vast sums of information about our private lives, and up until recently planned to make the owning of an ID card compulsory.

Another shocking development on which I have already written is the reported wishes of Harriet Harman to set successful rape conviction targets for prosecutors and police officers. The idea of an officer of the state being pressured to hit a target when there are questions of justice and fairness involved is repugnant and dangerous. It is for these reasons and more that the Criminal Bar remains, and needs to remain, a place for “aspiring independent advocate”.

When the Criminal Bar is considered from this perspective it is clear that for those who aspire to a career of protecting rights it is an area which can provide the opportunity to do such. I am sure that there may be some counter arguments presented on the nature of criminal work but I will save my observations on these for my rebuttal I have graciously been allowed. This also leads me onto the final limb of my argument:

Is the lack of money involved in criminal work so bad that it should deter all but the desperate from applying?

As explained above although the money may not bring you untold wealth it is enough to live, and to suggest it is not fails to take into consideration the fact that many live on a lot less. However the question is what is important to the individual. If a person claims that the protection of rights and providing representation to those who need it desperately is the most important aspect of being a barrister, then these principles should come before monetary considerations over and above what is needed to live. As stated above I submit that the Criminal Bar is an ideal and important arena to put these principles into practise.

Yours,

BoB