In the latest instalment of a continuing series, we offer advice on the issues that face solicitor-advocates

Q I have recently gained my higher rights in criminal proceedings and I have conducted a few short trials in the Crown Court.

Is it realistic to take on more complex cases as a junior advocate being led by a QC and/or leading junior?

A Before accepting a junior brief in any case, the solicitor-advocate must be confident that in the event of the QC/leading junior falling ill or dying (as does happen from time to time), the solicitor-advocate will be able to continue with the trial single-handedly.

Indeed, the solicitor-advocate will be expected to do so by the court.

This means cross-examining the witnesses and addressing the jury as well as dealing with all points of law.

Having conducted a few short trials is not of itself justification for taking on a junior brief.

However, acting as a junior advocate in a criminal trial is a good opportunity for a qualified solicitor-advocate.

The cases that justify a junior are likely to be lengthy and of some complexity.

Therefore, they require a different approach to the shorter, more straightforward cases.

The solicitor-advocate should resist the temptation of attending the police station when a client is arrested.

If at all possible, another solicitor should be dispatched there.

Attending and advising at the police station clearly makes one a possible witness.

This is made more likely when the advice to the client is to make no comment in interview - and it may be that the leading advocate in the case would want to call the solicitor to give evidence about the reasons behind that advice, to resist an inference being drawn.

Even if it is highly unlikely that the solicitor would be called, a slight risk should not be taken.

This is true of any prospective trial in the Crown Court.

Some solicitor-advocates consider it an advantage being able to follow a case through from the start at the police station to the finish at the Crown Court trial.

But to do so puts the advocate at risk of cross-examining witnesses on matters that the advocate has direct knowledge of and is a potential witness to.

In larger cases, and in particular where the case merits two advocates, and a solicitor-advocate is proposing to act as a junior, a number of formal advices will need to be written.

The first is the need to draft an advice on representation to instruct a QC.

Not all large cases justify the instruction of two advocates, and the advice should set out why it is believed necessary to instruct leading counsel and a junior advocate.

The reasons may include the volume of paperwork in the case, or the complexity of the issues.

If the Crown is to be represented by two advocates, then equality of arms is always a good reason for the instructing of two advocates.

The advice should be sent with an accompanying solicitors' letter to the resident judge at the Crown Court where the case is to be heard.

The Web site of the Solicitors Association of High Court Advocates (www.sahca.org.uk) contains detailed guidance on the issue of drafting the advice on representation - just enter 'QC' in the search box.

A chronology of events is usually useful in cases where there are several factual witnesses and the preparation of the chronology helps its author to absorb the facts of the case.

Times can often be crucial and the case papers are unlikely to be served in chronological order.

The next step is a formal advice on the evidence, which should set out for the instructing solicitor what needs to be done.

Clearly in a murder case, for example, a second post-mortem should be considered.

Many defence teams will request authority to instruct a pathologist automatically, but common sense should be applied.

If your client has shot an apparently healthy person who has immediately died then it is pretty obvious that the death was caused by the shot.

However, on occasions the cause of death is an issue at trial, and then you would be open to criticism if you had failed to instruct a pathologist to carry out a second post- mortem.

There may be a number of professional witnesses who should be instructed for the defence, and it is better to consider these issues at an early stage.

Do not just replicate the experts for the Crown.

Consider what issues the defendant's case raises that would be helped by an expert.

The mental health of the accused may be an issue, plans of a location, a weather report, etcetera.

Try to think of ways to present the evidence you need in an attractive way that will interest the jury and therefore hold its attention.

The jury should, of course, be a cross-section of people and therefore it is likely that some of them will have only short attention spans.

The defence statement should normally be drafted by the junior advocate and shown to leading counsel for approval.

How detailed the statement is will depend on what you are trying to achieve - it may be that you require specific items to be disclosed during secondary disclosure.

Unused material can be of vital significance depending on the case.

If a defendant is denying any involvement in the crime, then his case is helped enormously if there are other suspects who could have committed the crime.

In many police murder enquires, there will have been several lines of enquiry before the police have charged your client.

Find out what you can about these suspects and what evidence the police had about them.

Some of this work can be delegated to another fee-earner but the junior advocate needs to direct what is to be done.

The information gained from these enquires can be used in cross-examination at the trial.

Alternative suspects are clearly a side issue for the case, and your leader may delegate to you this line of cross-examination.

Some leaders are reluctant to leave any cross-examination to their juniors, but most will leave some aspect of the case to the junior advocate.

The junior is likely to be asked to prepare ideas for cross-examination and possible a schedule of the prosecution witnesses' inconsistencies.

A case that lasts for fewer than 30 days will be remunerated under the graduated fee scheme where conferences/advices are only paid for if the client is in custody or the conference is with an expert.

In non-graduated fee cases, as the junior advocate you will probably be paid half the amount that the leading advocate is paid if he is a QC, and two-thirds that of a leading junior.

However, there will be an additional payment for conferences/advices where the case is outside the 30-day limit for the graduated fee scheme.

Remember to distinguish between the role of advocate and litigator.

In complex trials, you will do your client a disservice by trying to do what are in essence two jobs.

This column was prepared by the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA).

For details of SAHCA or for a membership application form, contact Sandra Dawson, tel: 020 7837 0069.

E-mail your advocacy questions to Hilary Riddle, tel: 01233 820676, e-mail: hilary@hradmin.co.uk