Report comment

There is a complex dynamic driving this self-flagellation in the criminal advocacy sector. Much of the criticism could just as easily have been made in a bygone era when the crown courts were almost exclusively populated by barristers. In those days errors were easily forgiven within the embrace of the collegiate Bar or more often deficits were customarily flagged up as arising from 'those instructing learned counsel'. The presentation and procedure became seamlessly cosseted within the rhythm of the well rehearsed banter of gentlemen whose kindred spirit would air-brush the inevitable occasional gaff from either side. Often benign judges would suggest a brief adjournment and invite opposing counsel to chambers for a clarifying chat. Not so with the onslaught of solicitors who had grown vocal chords who now heavily populated the adversarial front benches, these interlopers fresh from the sweaty cells and dubious conversations with the criminal fraternity. Why would any self-respecting judge not feel some need for a second glance over his spectacles and down his nostrils at this new breed of advocate? Across the board the gross reduction in funding makes realistic and thorough preparation a challenge unless you are some kind of social crusader with a private income. SRA enquiries provide the final layer of authenticity to a very shoddy conspiracy to shift the blame from an essentially and increasingly disfunctional criminal justice system.