Blunkett accused of tipping the scales of justice too far

David Blunkett's keynote speech at the solicitors annual conference caused several waves in the national media last week.

The Independent claimed that the home secretary 'branded parts of the criminal justice system absurd and incompetent', warning that 'its whole credibility was at risk if witnesses and victims felt alienated' (29 September).

Despite this fiery rhetoric, the paper pointed out that Mr Blunkett was also 'in a conciliatory mood, apologising for commenting recently that lawyers were "in for a penny, in for a thousand pounds"'.

The Guardian also focused on the new 'conciliatory approach' adopted by the home secretary, as he 'urged lawyers to work with government to stamp out the culture of adjournment and delay that wastes more than 80 million a year in the criminal courts' (28 September).

In a separate story, the paper also reported Law Society President Carolyn Kirby's attack on government plans to reform mental health law.

It was left to the Daily Telegraph to sound a discordant note, as it led with the accusation that Mr Blunkett was 'trying to jettison 900 years of law' (30 September).

In his speech, he argued that 'equality and fairness could only be achieved if people did not cling to ancient rights' - a reference to legal protection for suspects in criminal trials - and 'changes were needed urgently to rebuild public confidences in the way criminal cases were conducted'.

This drew a rapid response from shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin, who warned that 'Mr Blunkett was tipping the balance of justice too far and undermining the presumption of innocence'.

Although stressing that he 'shared the home secretary's concern to see the criminal justice system modernised', Mr Letwin nonetheless went on to accuse Mr Blunkett of 'going further and further in the direction of being willing to jettison the fundamental protections which are built into our legal system'.

This time, he concluded, 'he has gone too far'.

The Times thought the delegates at the conference were also in a fighting mood, and its reports focused on Ms Kirby's claim that 'ministers and police peddle myths to blame them for falling conviction rates in criminal courts' (28 September).

Ms Kirby was 'on the attack', saying in her speech that 'it's no good blaming the lawyers, defence or prosecution for falling conviction rates - the answer to dealing with crime lies in better resources for law enforcement, better detection, better framing of charges and better resources for prosecution'.

Coverage in The Times and The Independent also focused on the concerns expressed by judicial appointments commissioner Sir Colin Campbell about the system he is overseeing.

The Law Society conference largely overshadowed the Bar Council's, although The Times reported that barristers had set their stall out to fight government plans to restrict jury trial in the upcoming criminal justice Bill.

Finally, The Times' law diary (4 October) noted that one of the questions directed at the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith QC during his panel appearance at the solicitors annual conference came from his brother Edward, former president of Liverpool Law Society.

He asked the panel if he should give up his conveyancing practice in the face of plans to open up the market to banks, and do personal injury work instead.

'[Lord] Goldsmith remarked later: "My answer would have been that he had never listened to my advice before, so I wasn't going to advise him now".'

Victoria MacCallum