James Morton is, of course, right to say that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)-designate's elderly cannabis conviction is irrelevant as far as his ability to do a good job is concerned, although I do wonder at Mr Morton's analogy of someone knocking off a policeman's helmet on boat race night (see [2003] Gazette, 4 September 2003, 15).

If the hooligan were to be a football one, rather than an upper-class boat race one, I suspect a different view might be taken.

What has not been commented on is that, with a few exceptions, under the Prosecution of Offences Act the DPP is party to all criminal proceedings commenced by police officers.

I seem to recall that R v Paraskeva (1983) 76 Cr.App.R.

162, is still good law, and therefore his conviction will have to be disclosed in every case.

At least the CPS's stationery suppliers will be happy.

Alternatively, I suppose, arrangements could be made to have judicial notice taken of it.

Perhaps we could be advised.

John Edwards, solicitor, Heswall, Wirral