Bar joins Law Society in assault on QASA

The Bar Council has joined the Law Society in launching a stinging attack on QASA.

Earlier this week, the society warned of “lawsuits against regulators” if criminal advocates could not obtain the evaluations they needed to reach the required QASA level.

Michael Todd QC (pictured), chairman of the Bar Council, said the scheme “should not simply provide a low minimum standard of competence or accredit advocates who are neither qualified nor capable of acting at trial, as this scheme does.”

He went on: “We have also expressed concerns about the categorisation of certain cases, which does not always reflect their potential complexity and may result in difficult work being assigned to advocates without the requisite experience.”

Todd said there was “no reason” why QCs required QASA accreditation.

“Regrettably, the scheme as proposed is ill-considered. The proposals are not the product of evidence-based research nor demonstrable concerns.

“In seeking to appease sectional interests, they do not serve the public interest, which should determine the outcome of this consultation.”

In its detailed response, Bar Council officials said the QASA scheme was “complex and expensive” and unlikely to be “capable of efficient application”.

The officials said they preferred a period of 18 months, rather than only 12, within which advocates must obtain the required number of evaluations.

QASA is due to be introduced from January next year in phases, covering different regions of England and Wales.

“Whilst the principle of a phased introduction is necessary and welcomed, it is considered that the time gap between areas being phased in is far too short,” the Bar Council said.

“It is insufficient to learn lessons and to correct problems that may have arisen. As it stands, there is a risk that the predictable problems of introduction will still be being dealt with by the regulators when the large South Eastern circuit is phased in after a three month gap.

“There must be a risk that the available resources of the regulators will be stretched to, or beyond, breaking point. Such a failure would result in the very opposite of that which the scheme is intended to achieve, with an obvious risk to the reputation of the regulator and thereby to that of the profession.”

The Bar Council urged the regulators to consider piloting the scheme. Not surprisingly it took the view that while an instructing solicitor is entitled to form a view of the level of a case, “it should be determined by the instructed advocate”.