A number of people obviously know about this case. If anyone prefers to ignore what they say, and base an opinion up speculation and Press reports, that's their right. A strange approach in my view, but nonetheless their right.
I won't comment on this case, but Inspector Lestrade's idea of a prosecuting barrister's role is quite wrong, and does need correcting.
It is NOT a barrister's job to 'win the case when he is prosecuting. A barrister has an important responsibility when acting as Prosecuting Counsel: To present the prosecution case impartially, and fairly.. .For example. .He must NOT excite emotion to influence the jury. . .He must try to calm emotions down, NOT stir them up, or play to them.. .He must NOT make emotive comments which may wrongly influence the jury against the defendant.. .He should NOT try to sway the juy by building up a terrifying picture of terrible things that might have happened if they did not happen.. .Where (as is usually the case) there are different descriptions of an event, he should NOT adopt the worst/most emotive version as the prosecution case - especially when there is reason to believe the worst version may be an exaggeration of an irritated or distressed witness.. .He must NOT try prejudice the against the defendant. He has a duty to try to ensure that the jury is not influenced by irrelevant prejudices.
Of course there are legitimate 'tricks of the trade' in advocacy, just as in every other job. But, and this is a very important exception, it is NOT a prosecuting barrister's job to do everything he can, fair or unfair, to 'win' the case.
The same principles of fairness and impartiality apply whether you're prosecuting somone for careless driving or for murder - and I've done both many times at different stages of my career.
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>