Who? Jo Life, 41-year-old partner at east London firm Edwards Duthie, specialising in criminal law.

Why is she in the news? Represented Peter Bryan, a paranoid schizophrenic who ate the brains of one of his victims and who won his appeal against an order that he remain in custody for the rest of his life after pleading guilty to two charges of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Last year, Bryan received two life sentences and Judge Giles Foster directed that the early release provisions should not apply, meaning Bryan should serve a whole life term for each. But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, sitting with two other senior judges in the Court of Appeal, ruled he should instead serve a minimum of 15 years. The court stressed that, in reality, it was hard to see that Bryan would ever be released.


Background: Law degree at Warwick University, followed by the Law Society finals at the College of Law and articles at her current firm, which was then called Duthie Hart Duthie. She qualified in 1989 and became a partner in 2002.


Route to the case: 'I got it is as a random duty solicitor case.'


Thoughts on the case: 'It was important, not just for murder cases but for all those with mental illnesses who need to be dealt with by the criminal justice system, if in some points a bit academic, as we accept that Mr Bryan's condition and the safety of the public are likely to require that he remains in custody for the rest of his life. It raised issues about how you appropriately assess criminal responsibility and punish someone who is mentally disordered. All the experts agreed that Mr Bryan was severely mentally ill. The court accepted pleas of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because of his condition, so he should have been sentenced on this basis. We argued that in assessing the seriousness of the offences, the original sentencing court should have looked not just at the facts of the cases, which in this instance were quite gruesome, but also at the defendant's culpability. The fact that the defendant was severely mentally ill must mean that he was less culpable and, therefore, a whole life term was inappropriate.'


Dealing with the media: 'The tabloid press was particularly unhelpful at the start of the case and we had to complain about the sensational reporting, which we felt was deeply prejudicial. Unfortunately, nothing was done and the same manner of reporting continued throughout.'