Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

The circumstances really do not protect the duty solicitor who may find himself in a situation where he either obliges what appears to be an innocuous request ( and many times may be) or has to tell the client that personal risk aversion prevents him from assisting, which really in most circumstances means go and find another brief. As the 'witness' in question was for whatever reason at the police station, this presumably would have been known to the duty solicitor who could have asked her personally for the his client's insurance number and avoided succumbing to the subterfuge. In the days before mobile telephones clients would often request a duty solicitor to let their wife or partner know that they have been detained at the police station for whatever reason. Again this may seem innocuous, but depending on circumstances may not be so. If the solicitor acts honestly and in good faith then what wrong has he committed? Often detainees languish in cells for many hours before interview, so the question of whether the communication is instantaneous or delayed is perhaps immaterial. Also, I have often found that investigating officers would have no objection to the same solicitor acting for two people brought in for the same or related offences and the decision to notify the custody sergeant that there was a potential conflict of interest was invariably one that I as a duty solicitor had to make. Well, if you want to invite an unhealthily close defence case progression surely you would start with conflict situations. The moral of this story is that in disciplining this young solicitor the tribunal was befuddled by the non sequitur that the physical presence and use of a mobile telephone was the damning feature.

Your details

Cancel