The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, suggesting that his lead counsel’s conduct was incompetent to a degree that rendered the conviction unsafe.
Held: Although there were possible serious criticisms of counsel, they were not such as to render the conviction unsafe.
The court concluded: ‘Finally, there is one feature of the conduct of this case which judges must ensure ceases immediately and not be repeated in any case. That conduct is making in an address to the jury personal criticism of opposing advocates in contradistinction to criticism of the prosecution case.
We were told that the practice of making personal criticism of prosecution advocates has become a feature of some addresses to the jury made by defence advocates. In this case the personal criticism of A and L by should not have been made in his addresses to the jury.
If any advocate has a criticism of the personal conduct of an opposing advocate that is a matter that should be raised before the judge who will deal with it then and there, though, in what we hope would be the rarest of circumstances, it could be referred to the professional disciplinary body.
The conduct of a trial before a jury requires proper and professional conduct by all advocates in speeches to the jury. As any personal criticism of the conduct of an opposing advocate is a matter for the judge, it can form no proper part of an address to a jury. The regrettable departure from proper standards of advocacy by making personal criticisms of advocates of an opposing party in an address to the jury must therefore cease. No court will tolerate its continuance.’
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1936
Bailii
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561474