James Morton looks at solicitors who attempt murder, the pitfalls of plea bargaining, and an anti-Glasgow barrister

The call by Judge Giles Forrester to the Law Society to investigate how Tokunbo Okunola, convicted of the attempted murder of his estranged wife, managed to get on the Roll of Solicitors was a bit dramatic and really unnecessary.

The reason for the judge's concern was that, as Percival Williams and then aged 17, Mr Okunola had been convicted of murder back in 1977.

In fact, the decision to allow Mr Okunola to register for traineeship was not taken lightly.

It was only after two debates by the full meeting of the Law Society Council, a rigorous investigation and the receipt of glowing reports on his behaviour as a prisoner and then following his release, that he was granted permission.

Surely a quiet word with the Society before making the statement would not have come amiss.

Then the judge could have been told of the circumstances before making his statement in open court.

As it is, the impression lingers that every solicitor's office houses a potential axe murderer waiting to swing at the first pensioner in to make a will.

In fact, statistically the Society was very unlucky.

Few people convicted of murder and who have themselves lived to tell the tale are convicted a second time of murder (it should be pointed out that Mr Okunola was convicted only of attempted murder).

It is something like fewer than 40 cases in Britain since 1900.

Of course, before 1964 not all those convicted the first time were around to have a second go.

***

A case of considerable concern is that of Stephen Hinchcliffe, the Sheffield businessman who in July was ordered to surrender to serve a prison sentence.

It is a good example of a plea bargain gone absolutely wrong.

Mr Hinchcliffe had served part of a four-year sentence, being released earlier this year and, in April, faced a further series of charges arising out of his Fascia business which collapsed in 1996.

He pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey on the strict understanding that judge Jeremy Roberts would give him a non-custodial sentence.

This the judge duly did, but the Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, and Mr Hinchcliffe received 18 months.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a sex offence case where the Court of Appeal said it would not reconsider the sentence because the Crown Prosecution Service had entered into the bargain.

Now we have a difficult position.

Apparently, Mr Hinchliffe was fully prepared to contest the case until he was offered the deal.

He took it in good faith and now finds himself inside.

I doubt whether he would succeed in seeking to reverse his plea but it is surely something he might consider.

As it is, we have the situation where an open sentence bargain is no longer an open sentence bargain.

The Court of Appeal reserves the right to change things.

If defendants are to be encouraged to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and save the courts' time and money - the cost of the new trial was thought to be in the region of 10 million - this doesn't seem to be the right way to go about things.

Yet another decision seems to have far-reaching consequences.

Harry Roberts, the last surviving member of the trio who killed three police officers in 1966 in Shepherds Bush, is in conflict with the Parole Board.

In 1999, Mr Roberts was moved to an open prison and given day release.

It seems he abused this privilege and was returned to a closed prison.

Last year, the Parole Board received certain information following a police inquiry but it was not disclosed to either Mr Roberts or his lawyer.

Now the Parole Board has decided that this evidence should be dealt with by a special advocate, who, it appears, will not discuss things with either Mr Roberts or the lawyer.

It may be that the report contains information from informers that would put them at risk, or allegations of some criminal enterprise Mr Roberts is supposed to have been plotting from his cell.

Or it may simply be that he will not drink his Horlicks at night.

But how will he ever be able to refute the allegations if he does not know what they are? The special advocate has been used in terrorist cases but the extension of its use by the Parole Board seems increasingly Kafkaesque.

***

I heard from a barrister acquaintance - I hesitate to use the word friend - recently.

He was in triumph saying that he had devised a way around the Race Relations Act.

A man who can start a quarrel in an empty room, he had argued with a waiter and ended by calling him 'Gorbals scum'.

Rightly, the waiter had taken umbrage and murmured words like 'prosecution' but the barrister had pointed out that this was not an attack on the man's nationality but the part of the city - not even the city - from which he came.

Of course it makes a mockery of things.

Six months for saying 'French whore' and nothing for saying 'Paris (or Marais) whore'.

However, I have a horrid feeling that he might be correct.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist