.png&w=3840&q=75)
QASA handbook published
'Indicator of professional competence', not kitemark
The QASA handbook was published yesterday, giving advocates in the Midlands and Western circuits all they need to know before registering when phase one of the scheme goes live on 30 September.
In keeping with the delays which have plagued the scheme, publication of the handbook, which sets out how QASA will work in practice, was two months later than planned.
In their introduction to the handbook, Charles Plant, chairman of the SRA, Baroness Ruth Deech, chair of the BSB, and Alan Kershaw, chair of ILEX Professional Standards, said poor quality advocacy could lead to miscarriages of justice.
"Despite this, there has been to date no formal or systematic way of identifying those who underperform.
"In this way, criminal advocacy is unlike other professions which have long had such mechanisms established."
The regulators said the purpose of QASA was "not to provide a kitemark of excellence but a formal indicator of professional competence".
That message was echoed by Dr Vanessa Davies, director of the BSB.
"QASA exists to protect the public from those advocates who are not as good as they should be," Dr Davies said.
"The majority of barristers will complete the process without any difficulty, but it's right we act to stop those who fall short."
Dr Davies said the QASA process was designed to be as straightforward as possible.
"It takes about ten minutes to register and the two year evaluation period takes place during a barrister's normal working routine.
"Judges have been trained to ensure that they only mark advocates against the QASA competencies and so barristers can be confident of a fair evaluation, which will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial."
QASA was finally approved by the LSB last month.
In its decision notice, the LSB said "concerns and limited evidence suggest a real risk, and a pattern, of actual problems in standards across a wide range of criminal advocates" and "almost nothing by way of evidence" suggested that quality was consistently good enough.
Copyright & permissions