Prompted by your recent article on advocacy, I need to get a few points off my chest (see [2004] Gazette, 22 January, 18).

I have had higher rights in crime since 1994 and have regularly exercised those rights.

Solicitor-advocates are different to barristers.

They do not have the chambers structure and it is, therefore, sometimes difficult for them to get to grips with some of the procedural mysteries of the Crown Courts, particularly where local rules and practices may apply.

That is an inconsequential difference, which only requires a thick skin to circumvent.

The main difference between solicitor-advocates and the bar is that solicitor-advocates could provide a far better service to the client and the courts than the present structure provides, if permitted to do so.

The problem is that solicitor-advocates are listed as counsel and paid as counsel.

This means that, like counsel, they cannot assume ownership of a particular brief until the case is firmly listed.

Even then a heavy brief may be removed at the last minute by the vagaries of the Crown Court listing system.

It is the inability of counsel to own a particular brief until the final stages that gives rise to such chaos throughout the plea and directions process.

It is that which effectively prevents counsel from pursuing and nailing the prosecution for failure to comply with agreements, or even orders, about disclosure and provision of further information.

If the Crown Court could guarantee listing trials so that I could be sure of conducting the defence, then I could guarantee to the Crown Court that the number of directions hearings, mentions and last-minute cracking of trials would be significantly reduced.

In conclusion, I do not need a wig to enable me to be heard effectively.

John Gardiner, Rothera Dowson, Nottingham