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

Q What are the real meanings some of the incomprehensible expressions I hear so frequently in the Crown Court, and how can I deal with them?

A Solicitor-advocates who have never previously practised at the bar are, in the early days of their Crown Court advocacy, in for something of a shock.

There are new codes to learn.

Both counsel and judges can and will use expressions with subtle meanings, some of which appear calculated to embarrass and insult.

And they seem, occasionally, to take delight in watching the look of surprise pass across the solicitor-advocate's face.

Here, then, is a short guide to the most common expressions with which solicitor-advocates who practice criminal law in the Crown Court have to deal.

This list is not exhaustive and additional contributions would be welcomed.

Judge: 'I cannot hear you.' This does not mean that your voice has not carried as far as the bench.

It usually means that you have done something wrong; your bands are grubby, crumpled, missing or hanging down; you do not have a right of audience or are not entitled to speak or raise an issue at this time or at all.

In the past it was aimed at all solicitor-advocates whenever they rose to their feet, but it is used more rarely now.

Judge: 'I hear what you say.' This is the signal, effectively, to stop talking and shut up.

The judge has made a decision and your argument is either doomed to failure or is a repetition of what you have said before.

But never say that to a judge - it is the height of discourtesy and the bench will get revenge somehow, and it will be unpleasant.

Judge: 'I am talking now.' This is perhaps the most obvious; never interrupt a judge.

If the bench has got something wrong, then raise the issue out of the hearing of the jury and note it for the Court of Appeal in due course.

Judge: 'You are pushing against an open door.' This means that you have won your argument and need not argue the point/submission any further.

You will upset the bench if you continue.

Judge: 'And your next point is?' This is an open invitation for you to move on and do so as soon as possible.

Judicial impatience with an advocate can only rebound to the potential disadvantage of the client.

Judge: 'You cannot improve on that point/question/answer to a question.' This is a firm indication that the judge does not want you to continue with, for example, that line of cross-examination and that an obvious point has been successfully made.

A jury will usually pick up the point and might even laugh.

To continue is only to lose the sympathy or respect of the judge and, as we all know, too many questions can ruin a good point.

Judge: [When you have yet to open your mouth on an issue] 'I do not need to hear from you.' The bench is to rule in your favour; do not ruin things by insisting on being heard.

You may raise something new, thereby giving your opponent the opportunity to repair faults in his case.

Court of Appeal judge: 'Can you improve upon [say] five years?' This is the strongest possible indication as to the sentence the Court of Appeal has in mind and the solicitor-advocate should simply say, 'No my Lord/Lady' and sit down unless there is a compelling argument or authority to which the court has not taken notice.

If you continue to argue you run the risk of the Court of Appeal not reducing the sentence to the level previously indicated.

Now on to the insults and comments between advocates.

One cannot ignore the differentiation between those who cover what little there is left of their own hair with horsehair and those who do not.

It starts with the words, 'My friend' and 'My learned friend,' the former referring of course to a solicitor-advocate and the latter to a member of the bar.

Plainly, the ability to eat subsidised meals and pass the booze round the table in the correct direction makes one learned in the law.

The fact that the professional examinations are roughly similar and that solicitor-advocates have to pass two sets of them or already be very experienced advocates appears to be of no relevance when determining whether a solicitor-advocate is learned.

Advocate: 'With respect', 'With all due respect', 'With great respect', 'With the greatest respect', and 'With the greatest possible respect', are insults of increasing aggression.

Watch for them, and do not be afraid to respond in equal terms or even to up the level.

There's a risk that a jury may consider the wigless solicitor-advocate as a second-class advocate.

As we well know after ten years of Crown Court advocacy, this is not true - but the public perception is different.

Often a jury will pass forward a note about the lack of wig and/or different gown, or someone has overheard a comment about the apparent difference between advocates and their dress.

The judge will often deal with the issue from the bench, or invite the solicitor-advocate to deal with it.

Take the bull by the horns, deal with it yourself - a judge will have to agree with you if you seek approval of what you say.

For example, a solicitor-advocate with white/grey hair would be able to tell a jury that he does not need to cover his already white/grey hair with something else that is white/grey.

This should get a laugh and a smile from a judge, who will confirm that all advocates in the case are to be regarded as being equally qualified to conduct the trial.

No one loses out, the solicitor-advocates' professional position and dignity is confirmed and both the defendant and the jury will hear the judge agree with the solicitor-advocate.

This column was prepared by the Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates.

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

E-mail advocacy questions to: sandra@admin4u.org.uk.