James Morton argues for the early release of Maxine Carr and, in a lighter vein, wonders which barristers possess that star quality

I have never been much in favour of the silk system, but it does seem hard for these poor folk who have laboured and buttered up people for years to find their tenure is to be a mere decade, as has recently been proposed.

On what criteria will silks be relicensed? A minimum number of winning cases? No quarrels with judges? Pro bono work undertaken? It will be an almost suicidal situation for those who are not re-appointed.

Will they be able to have QC (ex) after their names? Will they get back to the top flight after a couple of years of relegation? Still, the legal outfitters should be able to do a revolving trade in gowns and wigs.

Perhaps it will not be a wholly ill-wind.

***

One of the unconsidered results of cost cutting in the legal aid system and the ending of the eligibility of many defendants to have a lawyer in the magistrates' courts will be the knock-on effect on the standard of advocacy at the Crown Court.

In-depth experience in the lower courts has always been the key to success at a higher level.

After all, what are lay magistrates but repeat jurors? If lawyers are deprived of essential training then jury trials will last longer, cost more and there will be a much greater risk of miscarriages of justice.

Just because a person will end with a fine, that is no reason to deprive him of proper representation.

A reputation once lost can rarely be regained.

***

Neither the home secretary nor Martin Narey - the head of the grandly titled National Offender Management Service - has covered themselves with glory over the decision not to release Maxine Carr.

They have in effect bowed to the baying mob.

The home secretary has introduced retrospective powers to ensure her continued detention while Mr Narey has refused to release her on the basis that she is indelibly connected with the Soham murders and the 'public outcry' that followed them.

He added that 'the possibility of your early release has attracted and continues to attract huge publicity'.

The fact that she has qualified in every way for early release and tagging counts for nothing in the system where, by the time this article appears, prisoners will again, in all probability, have to be held in police cells.

There are many far more dangerous people than Carr being let loose on a daily basis.

Mr Narey should think again.

***

It is nearly 70 years since Norman Birkett tied with the Aga Khan in a Daily Express poll of famous people about whom the readers liked to read.

As a matter of interest, Lloyd George led the field closely followed by Winston Churchill and naturally Lord Beaverbrook.

Gracie Fields was in fourth place.

Birkett and His Highness came one place below Gordon Richards, the jockey.

There was also a poll of those about whom the readers least liked to hear.

Bernard Shaw was by far the least popular.

Then came the now forgotten aviatrix Amy Mollison, at the time in the midst of a highly publicised marriage break-up, and Sir Oswald Mosely.

In those days, barristers along with senior police officers had a star quality perhaps lacking today.

Much was the result of the death penalty as well as the defended divorce, the end of both rather casting a shade over the profession.

It is amazing to think that for a 'good' murder there would be special editions of the newspapers.

When James Rush went on trial at Norwich for the murder of the Recorder, Isaac Jermy, the weekly papers produced daily editions.

Of course, one of the reasons was the brevity of the case.

Two or three days constituted a long trial.

Now all we hear of is the opening by the Crown and possibly see a paragraph or two when the defendant gives evidence.

And that is that until the verdict.

It would be interesting to know with which members of the bar (solicitors are by repute far too dull to be included) past and present, readers would care to dine.

It is now perfectly permissible to do this.

In the past, I believe as recently as the 1960s, it was known as 'hugging the attorney' and was a disciplinary offence.

I suspect George Carman would be a frontrunner as a dinner companion along with the elegant Anthony Scrivener.

Personally, I would choose Billy Rees-Davies but I would have had to meet him at the restaurant.

It was a completely unnerving experience to drive with him.

He lost his right arm in the war but this did not prevent him operating a left-hand drive car with a floor gear change at some speed.

Once on the way to the Old Bailey, we cannoned off a parked vehicle.

Billy did not seem to notice and when it was mentioned to him, he simply replied, 'A gentle caress,' before accelerating away.

I understand the editor might be persuaded to allocate a modest prize for the reader who puts up the best argument for a potential dinner partner.

But it will not include the cost of the dinner.

Nor can the appearance of the nominee be guaranteed.

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