Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 151.
“I do not wish to prejudge the outcome, however, and hope that, notwithstanding my desire for the Criminal Bar Association to resume full service with immediate effect, it will, at the very least, look favourably at the cases identified and allow them to proceed through the courts.”
“<BR /> <BR />From my perspective, there are two things. The first is that we will be meeting voluntary and community sector partners. I have invited them, along with the PPS, to meet me to discuss where they may be able to provide more support as an interim measure. The second is that the PPS and others, including Victim Support and the victim and witness care unit, have been looking very carefully at the range of cases being delayed in order to identify the most sensitive cases, the cases in which the victims and witnesses are most vulnerable and the cases that have been in process for the longest time in order to determine whether, at the very least, a derogation could be negotiated on those cases. Members will recall that that was tried last time, unsuccessfully — I think that, in the end, only one case received a derogation.”
“I mentioned the various third-sector organisations — the community and voluntary groups — that already provide that service, whether that be the victim and witness care unit in the PPS, Victim Support, the NSPCC young witness service, ASSIST NI, Nexus, Women's Aid or others. All those organisations are in constant contact with the PPS and trying to reach out to each person about their case in order to give them the necessary reassurance and support. You are right that it is a profound disappointment. There are a number of cases that have been identified publicly, such as the murders of Natalie McNally and Chloe Mitchell and others, in which people have been waiting for a long time to see justice done. They will be delayed. Cases are being delayed in which people are still at risk of harm.”
“That was the purpose of the refresher fee pilot, but we could not get agreement, because people still wanted to get a full-day fee and, during the time that they were being paid, to hop about other courts and claim additional fees for that work. That is not sustainable or negotiable: it cannot happen.”
“The truth about younger members of the profession is that they do not earn enough money because they do not get enough work. It is not the fees that are the problem but the hoarding of cases by senior members of the profession and the fact that junior barristers do not get the opportunity to work. The refresher fee pilot was designed explicitly to ensure that we try, at each court tier, to move people up the court tiers so as not to have senior barristers dipping in and out for work in the Magistrates' Court and to ensure that that pathway is clear for junior barristers to gain experience. They can then get further experience as junior counsel in the Crown Courts and take over in that way.”
“That block to resolving the issue will not go away because there is mediation. That is the challenge that we face. In 2016, when there was mediation with the Department, the scenario was different: the Department was planning to apply significant cuts to legal aid and went for mediation in the absence of any other structure. It actually reduced the cuts that it was planning to legal aid. The situation is different.”
“<BR /> <BR />Secondly, some of the issues here are non-negotiable. I cannot give an uplift to fees without evidence. I have a duty to ensure value for money. Those are non-negotiable points. The issue of paying people out of the public purse twice for the same time is non-negotiable. Mediation will not solve that. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, I went to Judge Burgess and asked for his advice on mediation. I did so out of courtesy, because he has invested in the process intensively over the past year and, I would argue, has brought forward significant change not just for the criminal Bar but for the Bar as a whole. His advice was that the first thing that would happen with mediation is that people would be asked for the very evidence that they have not presented to the working group.”
“I set out a few reasons why mediation is not the answer. First, the action was announced within four days of the criminal Bar agreeing the road map and that the working group would continue to take the issues forward. There is no consistency. You cannot negotiate with people who move from here to there and from there to here so that you cannot tell what the next ask will be. On every occasion when people have raised issues with me, I have tried to lean in and deal with them, but it cannot keep being a moveable feast. I sit with one group from the Bar who tell me one set of issues and agree that we need to deal with them, and then, when that group resigns, another group from the Bar comes in and we end up getting another narrative altogether. Mediation will not fix that. That is the first thing to say.”
“That was part of it, but other studies were done at the same time by the Department and others. The plan was a collation of that work, and it was consulted on extensively. We have to go with the evidence that we have and move in the right direction. In the long term, that will secure the sustainability and viability of the profession and the courts. At the moment, I simply feel that we are not getting the reciprocation of effort to deliver on that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Where we have had the opportunity to accelerate some of those elements, we have taken it. For example, the PACE issues and the parole pilot are two areas that we have been able to bring forward more quickly. There were also issues around travel costs for rural solicitors in particular, who identified those issues when I met them directly. We went away, found a solution to that and implemented that too. <BR /> <BR />Are we keeping pace with where we had hoped to be when we introduced the plan? No. Are we keeping the Committee informed of how we have had to review the plan and why? We are, absolutely. We are still committed to the overall direction. It was not a plan that I plucked out of the air; first and foremost, it was a plan that Tom Burgess recommended.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have also had to consider reform of the taxing system, because that has become a more acute challenge for the Department and our finances in terms of transparency and accountability, which are at the heart of everything that we are trying to achieve. It is public money, and it has to be accounted for meaningfully. People may have a sense of what they are worth, but I have to account for that in a more substantive way than by people simply pulling numbers out of the air. I need to understand what the hourly rate is, how that is applied in different cases and how many hours are worked on those cases so that we can have a better and transparent understanding of why people are being paid those fees. That has delayed the implementation of the rest of the road map.”
“No, we are not on track, because, as the Member will know as a member of the Committee, we have had to re-profile the delivery of that programme, first, because of the intensive engagement that we have had around fee structures and, secondly, because the way in which we were going to deal with cases left on the books was a matter of contention for the CBA, as I mentioned earlier. While I do not believe that the overall income through legal aid is a significant amount of money, it was better to put that to the end of the programme rather than where it was, which was nearer the start of the programme.”
“By the end of January, the impact of the current withdrawal will be in the region of half those numbers, but it puts in perspective the significant impact that the withdrawal of service will have on victims, on witnesses and on the justice system in general. <BR /> <BR />There is nothing to stop the CBA returning to full service, continuing to engage on the working group with Judge Burgess and my Department and re-engaging on that basis so that we can solve the issues in a manner that does no damage to the justice system or to the ethical integrity of the profession but focuses on ensuring public service delivery while ensuring that people are properly remunerated for the work that they do.”
“We are aware of a number of cases, and they are quite serious cases. Some will be higher-profile than others, but they include rape, serious domestic violence and serious sexual assault cases and cases involving child victims and witnesses. All are being held up and impeded by the action. The impact on delay, which we had already been working hard with justice system partners to address, will probably not be fully clear for some time, but, last week alone, 10 trials, 57 arraignments and 22 plain sentencing hearings were directly affected. The full withdrawal list last January meant that 164 trials were aborted; 328 sentencing hearings that could have concluded cases from the victims' perspective were aborted; 536 victims were stood down or informed that their case was not being heard; and 2,811 witnesses were stood down.”
“The delays that are being accumulated at this point will be delays that we will carry into the future, and they will do huge damage to the justice system. <BR /> <BR />I am willing to look at all options, but my preference is to see the criminal Bar back at full service delivery. The differences between us can be resolved; in fact, the previous chair agreed with my analysis that that could happen in the month of November. I encourage the criminal Bar to get back to that point. A month would resolve its problems, and there is no reason that it cannot work while navigating the issues, just as the solicitors' criminal Bar does.”
“There is a financial cost to the stop-go in the Bar and its impact on the system. There is an emotional cost to those who are caught up in that, but that emotional cost also has a financial cost attached, because people will need more support from the organisations that are there to support them through the justice system. Providing that support will require more intensive investment. I am meeting those support organisations about that later this week to see whether there is more that we can do to ensure that we do not have victim and witness attrition as part of the overall process, where people simply walk away from cases and those cases are then allowed to fall by the wayside. There is a cost — a financial cost — to this, and there is no budget line for recovery in my budget.”
“I have already instructed my officials to look at options for the delivery of advocacy for those who are in receipt of legal aid in order to ensure that they are still able to access justice, which is my duty. My duty is not to barristers or solicitors, albeit, as part of a healthy justice system, I have a responsibility to ensure that it functions well and that includes working closely with the professions. My primary duty is to those in receipt of legal aid. <BR /> <BR />I do not want to pre-empt what may happen at this stage by speculating on the options available, but all options are on the table, and we will have to consider them. What we cannot have, however, is the cycle of stop-go. It will not work in the justice system any more than it works in politics. It causes significant damage and comes at a significant cost.”
“<BR /> <BR />We in the Department looked at a case involving a criminal prosecution in which the defence earned 10 times what the prosecuting barrister earned, despite having the same overheads and the same case complexity. All things being equal, those claiming through legal aid for the defence were earning a metric of about 10 times as much. That is not sustainable. Therefore, there is a difference between the fees. I will say this: when we look for barristers to work on call-off contracts for the public sector and, indeed, the PPS, there is no shortage of people willing to come forward and do that work, which shows that the remuneration is healthy.”
“No, it does not, and I will tell you why. The people who do call-off contracts for government and, indeed, those who work for the PPS get paid significantly less than, for example, defence barristers in the same case. If you look at what somebody gets paid via legal aid to defend a case in court versus what somebody gets paid by the PPS to prosecute that case, you see that there is a significant discrepancy. That discrepancy should not exist, but there is no way that I can justify funding that discrepancy from the Justice Department's budget. Even with the increase to Departments' counsel fees — indeed, that may extend in due course to the PPS — those who act on their behalf will still be paid significantly lower rates than those who act through the legal aid system. That is not sustainable.”
“<BR /> <BR />While mediation seems like a solution, I ask this question: given that the Bar and the CBA, in particular, asked Judge Burgess to chair the working group, do we just continue with different modes of engagement until they find somebody willing to chair the group who agrees with everything that they ask for?”
“<BR /> <BR />From my perspective, there is a tendency for people to assume that this is a dispute about pay in the way that an employed person may be in dispute with their employer. I am not the employer of anyone in the Bar. My role is to provide adequate remuneration in order that people who cannot afford to access justice are able to obtain the advocacy that they need to have their case heard and either defended or prosecuted in the courts. My focus is on the use of public funds and whether there is value for money. I cannot ignore the value-for-money element.”
“To me, it would have been an enormous slight on His Honour Judge Burgess to say that we needed a further set of mediations when we already have a mediation process in place under the auspices of Judge Burgess in the working group. It would also be unfair on the members of, for example, the Law Society, the solicitors' criminal Bar and, indeed, other barristers, if I were to go off into a huddle with the Criminal Bar Association and look only at their issues to the exclusion of everyone else when they are the people who have withdrawn service while others have continued to do their everyday job and make that investment in victims and witnesses. That would not be appropriate.”
“No. The LCJ did not offer to mediate personally. I am sure that she would want me to stress that she would not get involved in this dispute. She did write to the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Department suggesting that mediation may be a way forward. We declined that offer, because, unlike in 2016 when there was mediation, there is a road map and structure within which we can negotiate these issues.”
“Given the context that we are in and all the pressures that we face, a 16% uplift, speedier payment, plus the other changes that we propose and my willingness to look at anywhere that there is real justification for other fees to be uplifted, is as far as anyone can rationally expect me to go.”
“That was the first time that we have been able to do that in the time that I have been in office and, indeed, I think, since devolution. <BR /> <BR />We were able to set aside what we anticipated legal aid would cost as opposed to what happened in previous years, when we set aside a proportion for legal aid and then tried to uplift it gradually as we went through the quarterly reviews of the finances within Departments. We have also driven down the length of time that it takes to pay the profession, which has also been an issue of contention. We have managed to get that resolved.”
“You have all just had a session with the Finance Minister, who set out in fairly stark terms the budgetary situation that we face. The Department of Justice has, in the period since devolution but particularly in the past 10 years since the removal of the ring-fencing of the Department of Justice's budget, suffered significant reductions in comparison with other Departments. When you look at the fact that our budget is mainly demand led and, therefore, we cannot control the different pressures that arrive at our door, and at our constrained finances, you see that we face a fairly bleak picture in the next 12 months. However, despite the pressures that we have been under, last year, we set aside the full requirement for legal aid at the start of the year.”
“There are 14 adjournments in the average criminal law case in Northern Ireland compared with seven in England and Wales. There has to be something that we can do to change that, and the refresher fee pilot, along with the other changes that we recommended in the plan, are there to do that. I am willing to look again at fees, but I do not think that fees are the reason why some young barristers are not able to survive as barristers.”
“That is an issue for them, which I am very sympathetic to, but it is also an issue for the sustainability of the profession, because, unless young people have adequate experience, they will not be able to take over the more complex cases from people who age out of the profession. <BR /> <BR />There is the issue of people charging twice for the same period. The refresher fee pilot will ensure that, where a barrister is meant to be in the High Court, for example, they are not also nipping into the Magistrates' Court to do other work. That would allow that Magistrates' Court work to pass on to younger barristers, who would be able to cut their teeth and gain experience. That is a sensible solution to a problem that we have had. The hoarding of cases also impacts on the number of adjournments that we see in serious cases in Northern Ireland.”
“Regulation of the professions is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. That rests with the Department of Finance. However, where fee structures and legal aid structures can play a role in assisting people, we want to use the leverage to do that. You used the word "excel". Lots of working-class people and lots of women do excel at the Bar. The problem is that they often cannot access cases when they get to that level of qualification, because, as I pointed out, around 75% of the fees go to about 22% of the barristers. That hoarding of cases means that there are young people who are shut out of the profession and do not get the opportunity to practise their craft.”
“Yes, it was referred to as an interim uplift, and that has now happened. The truth is that we have gone beyond that 16%. As I have said, we have also looked at PACE fees and other things. Those were the things that Judge Burgess was talking about. As I said in my statement, I am not averse to further uplifts in criminal Bar fees, but they have to be evidenced. If I do not have sufficient evidence to ground a business case for an uplift in reality, I will be unable to approve one. Claims made last week that there should be a 100% uplift on fees are detached from the real world and the financial situation that we all face, but they are also detached from what people are currently paid for doing the same job in neighbouring jurisdictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the evidence that has been provided in the independent report, there are differences between our analysis and that of the independent report. I dispute some of the content of the report. They have given us around 15 dip samples of how people's earnings and fees have operated, but that is not a cross section that is statistically significant, nor is it a basis upon which we can make decisions. Judge Burgess reached the conclusion that we could not move forward on that basis. We have encouraged people to come forward with further evidence and, indeed, developed an evidence-gathering template that will allow us to bring this stuff forward in a more coherent way. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked another question, but I cannot recall what it was.”
“There were a number of questions there. First, it was delayed because we had to go through a due diligence process. That was with the Committee, it had to be agreed by the Department of Finance and a business case had to be prepared. Did it contribute to the strike action? I do not believe so because when I met the then vice chair and chair of the CBA and the Bar Council, I was able to reassure them about the time frame for delivery. It was almost a month after that, when the new regime had taken over, that they decided to proceed with the strike action, despite being previously advised not to go down that route by the Bar Council. I do not think that the delay contributed to the strike, but, of course, I do not welcome any delay. It is, however, a reality that we have to provide robust evidence to the Department of Finance.”
“It is his view that if we entered mediation, we would immediately hit the same roadblock, because his inability to get a resolution to the issue has been due not to a want of effort but a want of evidence to substantiate the claims that are being made.”
“By the time the correspondence in question had been received by the Department, the opportunity to stave off the arrangement that was proposed had passed, because we had agreed a road map on 8 December. Everyone signed off on that, including the CBA and the Bar Council, and it was agreed as the way to take forward those discussions. There has been talk by the CBA and the Bar Council about mediation and a mediated approach. However, mediation will not get over the main hurdle, which is the lack of evidence to substantiate the demands that they have made. I took advice from Judge Burgess about the opportunity to seek mediation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Victims, witnesses and defendants deserve so much more, and we cannot deliver the service that they and wider society deserve if the system is continually brought to a halt. I have previously stated that that cycle simply cannot continue in the longer term, and I know, as will Members, that alternative models for delivery of services provided by the criminal Bar will have to be progressed at pace if the withdrawal does not conclude swiftly. As I have also said, that is not a step that I want to take, nor is it one that I would take lightly, but it is difficult, at this juncture, to see another way forward. <BR /> <BR />I commend the statement to the House.”
“I hope that the CBA and others with influence over it will see that. <BR /> <BR />Last week, I took the unprecedented step of writing to all 219 barristers who were in receipt of Crown Court legal aid payments in the past 12 months, setting out clearly what has already been achieved through the working group and my willingness to work with the profession to bring the impasse to an end. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that the CBA has provided slightly more clarity on its current ask in response to that letter. I remain, as ever, committed to constructive engagement and am due to meet the chair and vice chair of the CBA this week. I hope that they are equally open to progress.”
“An amended list of demands was presented just days prior to a further meeting with officials on 8 December, at which time a road map was agreed by all working group members to take forward all the outstanding issues, including those raised by the CBA. However, within a few days more, the CBA took the decision to escalate its action and to withdraw completely from the Crown Court, despite having agreed a way forward and being in the knowledge that the uplift and backdated payments were due to reach bank accounts in early January. That is hard to reconcile. <BR /> <BR />My hope remains that the CBA members will return to full service and join us, the SCBA and others in the working group to progress change. The working group and the road map provide a real opportunity for collaborative delivery of a sustainable, viable system.”
“<BR /> <BR />I met members of the profession on 5 November and was heartened by what was a constructive engagement in which that progress was acknowledged and it was agreed that intensive engagement on the refresher fee pilot would take place over the remainder of that month. It was also agreed that I would meet members quarterly to improve communications, which I was happy to do. <BR /> <BR />Instead, the CBA committee resigned en masse, and new leadership was elected. The latest CBA requirements for a full return to service were presented to us late on 26 November, and my officials met the CBA two days later to discuss them.”
“It is not yet clear to me whether the Bar is taking steps to improve viability and towards a fairer distribution of cases and related funds, but I hope that its members will follow the example and leadership of their colleagues in the Law Society and take action to support career development and equality of opportunity. <BR /> <BR />I also hope that the Bar will reflect on my request and reconsider this very damaging service withdrawal. I encourage it to reflect on the real progress that has been and can be made and to acknowledge how responsive my Department and I have been.”
“Indeed, that goal is one of the key drivers behind the refresher fee pilot, which aims to promote career development by freeing up work and changing the profile of barristers working in the various court tiers for the benefit of junior and, in particular, female criminal defence barristers. That strategy will not work, of course, if multiple fees can be claimed for the same period of court time by the same individuals. <BR /> <BR />I cannot address that imbalance alone: the profession must also take steps to promote career development and to ensure that the system does not perpetuate delay by being dependent on a few individuals working on a disproportionately large number of cases.”
“Fee levels are immaterial if you do not have the opportunity to earn, and, regrettably, that is very much the experience of some. Between April 2022 and September 2025, 74% of legal aid expenditure on counsel in the Crown Court went to just 22% of criminal defence counsel. In fact, one barrister received £3·89 million — as much as the total received by 53% of their colleagues put together. When it comes to junior members of the Bar, the real question therefore is not how much we pay for work but how that work and the associated funds are distributed to ensure a thriving, experienced and sustainable profession. <BR /> <BR />I am committed to doing what I can to address that.”
“We are not comparing like with like. Practice has changed. Indeed, the total legal aid expenditure on barrister costs for work in the Crown Court has increased by 76% since 2019-2020. <BR /> <BR />Our current fee regime means that some members of the Bar are very well paid: the chair of the Bar has acknowledged that. I also agree with his assessment that some more junior members of the Bar are probably struggling, but it is convenient and overly simplistic to suggest that that is because of fee levels.”
“That is the appropriate forum to take the work forward, not a picket line at the door of the Bar Library and not a war of attrition in which the most vulnerable of our citizens are used as weapons. <BR /> <BR />Any further changes, which I am committed to making where they are required, must be based on the reality of the current landscape. The statement by the CBA that fees have not increased since 2005 does not reflect the reality of the current landscape. The recent 16% uplift was applied to the Crown Court legal aid framework that was agreed by the CBA through mediation in 2016. That mediated agreement reduced proposed significant cuts to fees that, as in England and Wales at the same time, were proposed in the interests of efficiency, value for money and sustainability. The picture has also not been static since then.”
“The committed and engaged approach of the Law Society and SCBA is delivering tangible results and proving our commitment to act where evidence justifies it. It has allowed us, for example, to introduce additional changes to police and criminal evidence (PACE) and parole fees and to develop a PACE pilot that we aim to commence in March. <BR /> <BR />His Honour Judge Burgess was clear: the available evidence allowed him to make a recommendation for a 16% uplift. I accepted and implemented that uplift. The Bar is now saying that 16% is not enough and that a further uplift, which it is describing as "interim", is required. However, Judge Burgess was also clear that further changes to fees beyond that 16% would require further evidence, and the working group was set up to that end.”
“Affordability is an issue for the Department — were it not, Members would rightly hold me and my officials to account — but it is not the primary issue in discussions with the CBA. The challenge, also rightly, is value for money and proving that value with robust evidence. I cannot depart from that principle. I cannot sanction spend from public moneys on the basis of someone’s word, however much we might value their professional prowess. The Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) is being asked in the same working group to meet the same evidential requirements, and it is delivering. Solicitors are doing so while continuing to deliver services to their clients. Arguably, a higher number of solicitors are affected by the current Crown Court fee structure than barristers, yet they remain in work.”
“I have a duty to uphold the principles of managing public resources and to ensure that value for money is being achieved. If we are paying for a period of someone’s time from public funds, we cannot also pay them for other work undertaken at the same time. No one can effectively deliver two services at once. That goes to the heart of good governance. It goes to the heart of ensuring that those whom legal aid is there to support — the actual recipients of legal aid — receive a quality service. Legal aid is provided so that those who cannot afford advice and representation get access to justice, and they deserve the same quality of service as any other client. <BR /> <BR />I also cannot make a case for fee changes in the absence of evidence.”
“I have also said many times that service withdrawal means delay and additional delay means that defendants, whether guilty or innocent, must wait longer for their case to be resolved. Delay means greater risk of witness attrition and of people withdrawing co-operation. It means greater risk of victims not receiving justice and greater risk of justice coming too late. It means greater risk of harm to the public: risk that the innocent remain in custody longer than necessary and that the guilty go free. <BR /> <BR />I really want to do all that I can to ensure that cases proceed and the justice system operates as it is supposed to. However, there are things that I simply cannot do. I cannot sanction payments from public funds for the same or overlapping periods of court time.”
“<BR /> <BR />By April, we were told that development of the proposed refresher fee pilot would secure full return to service. We developed proposals that included fees over 100% higher than those recommended by Judge Burgess in his 24 August report and 20% higher than the CBA had requested in April 2025, but, again, the CBA did not return to full service. The obstruction was that CBA members wanted to claim the proposed refresher fee for a full day in court while also claiming fees for work undertaken in other courts during the same period of court time. In an effort to ensure the efficiency of the justice system, we adjusted the time period to which the full-day refresher fee applied, but still that appears not to have been enough to end the withdrawal of service. <BR /> <BR />As I have said already, I am very keen to end the impasse.”
“<BR /> <BR />By January, the ask had changed, and the service withdrawal was being linked to the full implementation of the fundamental review, an immediate uplift in fees and the abandonment of my proposed approach to cases left on the books. Again, I responded as I could: I began the necessary governance and legislative steps to implement the 16% uplift; delayed publication of the programme delivery plan to allow representations to be considered; and then reprioritised the plan to postpone the proposed review of cases left on the books. The professions were clear at that point: they wanted the working group established quickly and His Honour Judge Burgess to be appointed to lead that work. I made that appointment, and the working group has been meeting, but, again, the CBA did not return to full service.”
“I went further still — much further than Judge Burgess recommended — and backdated the uplift to 1 December 2024. That was an unprecedented step — uplifts have never been retrospective — but I considered it justified and reasonable to apply the increase from the point at which I accepted the recommendations. Notwithstanding the very damaging effects of the withdrawal, I extended the backdated uplift to all members of the Bar, as well as solicitors. I did not want practitioners who were continuing to deliver services to suffer negative consequences because of the CBA action. That was not an insignificant step, but, again, the CBA continued with the withdrawal of service.”