The criminal justice system is under attack again.

The recent speeches and interviews by chief constables coupled with the programme made by Charles Pollard, the chief constable of the Thames Valley Police, are clearly a concerted effort to persuade the home secretary to promote further legislation.This should not be difficult.

He has always shown a readiness to respond to the latest newspaper headlines.

Chief Constable Pollard carefully avoided putting the blame on the legal profession.

Others, however, have been quick to suggest that solicitors doing their duty to their client are frustrating the intentions of Parliament.There is no doubt that under our system there will be defendants who, although guilty of a crime, are acquitted.

There will also be defendants who are not guilty who will be convicted.

There is no system under the control of human beings that will not make mistakes.What is more worrying is the failure to remember that there is a need for a balance in our system.

I still hold to the view that it is more important to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted than that the guilty may go free.

This is because of the consequences of a wrongful conviction.

The thought of a man like Stefan Kiszko being imprisoned for years for a crime he could not have committed fills me with horror.

That is not to say that it is not important to ensure conviction when the criminal is correctly charged.What is more surprising about the present attack on the system is that in 1993 the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, under the chairmanship of Lord Runciman, reported.

This was set up in the aftermath of a number of successful appeals, notably the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.

The terms of the commission made it clear that it was to look for changes which would ensure the guilty were convicted as well as the innocent acquitted.The commission's report made a series of recommendations which were an attempt to get the balance right.

It did not recommend any change to the right of silence, but the government rejected that and has enacted changes which come into effect next month.There are other changes yet to be considered, such as more openness at the pre-trial review as to the defence case.

Provided the safeguards are incorporated, I have no objection personally to the change suggested.Why are the police, who at the time accepted the report, apart from the recommendation about the right to silence, now starting to press for further powers? The changes already accepted have not yet come into operation.

Would it not be more sensible to wait for them to be assessed before seeking more change?Am I the only one with a concern for the suspect in the police station: the person who needs support from his or her solicitor, not a concerted attempt to persuade him or her to confess, possibly wrongly? Am I the only one who cannot accept that the police always get the right person? Justice demands that evidence is properly obtained, that cases are judged on that evidence not on prejudice.Meanwhile, back at the Home Office we have yet another attempt to stiffen community sentences.

Whether they are a soft option seems to depend on the minister at the time.

In 1992 Michael Jack said: 'Community sentences are not simply alternatives to custody, they are demanding punishments in their own right.' In 1995 the view seems to have changed.

We can all make up our own minds about the relative merits of punishments, but it seems to me that the main criterion must be does it work?The home secretary proclaims that 'Prison works', and so it may for a limited period of time and at a cost of £437 per prisoner per week.

Community sentences do not seem to have any worse record at a cost of £25 per week.

Whatever the merits of these new proposals to give courts more power to specify what an offender should do on a community-based order, I do hope the Lord Chancellor is giving the matter his attention.

These proposals will mean longer hearings and that will increase the cost.Publicity in criminal cases is another area about which I have some concerns.

The attendance of the press and cameramen at the home of persons about to be arrested or raided cannot be a coincidence.

We have seen this in the past week in relation to Bruce Grobbelaar.

A month or so ago the press were waiting at the offices of the Gloucester firm Robinsons when a raid was made.This must lead to a risk of prejudice to the individuals concerned, even if they are never charged with any offence.

It has the risk of taking us down the US route where control of the media is almost more important than the trial itself.

Surely we do not want the OJ Simpson experience here.I do not blame defence solicitors who feel they have to put their client's side of the story when the prosecution has leaked their side to the press.

I do ask solicitors to remember their role as officers of the court.

If the system of justice is to be upheld, and it is vital that it is, we must all adopt a dignified approach which in no way undermines our duty to speak out on our client's behalf when appropriate.Finally, I am concerned about the complaint the some solicitors are alleged to be giving inducements to prisoners to transfer their instructions or to reward them.

This is clearly contrary to our ethical code.

It is one thing to offer a cigarette during an interview, it is another to offer money.

There is a risk that this could get out of hand and I do hope that it can be stopped.