Popat v Barnes: QBD 7 Apr 2004

The claimant had at first been convicted of a rape, but acquitted after a second appeal. He now sued the barrister who had represented him at the trial alleging negligence in (inter alia) failing to present fully the alibi evidence.
Held: Defence counsel should have reconsidered the decision whether or not to seek an alibi direction. Nevertheless, he could not sue his barrister for the choices made in the trial, the decision had been made as a tactical one within the trial: ‘Neither counsel nor the Judge had dwelt on or ‘compartmentalised’ the topic of alibi. All had addressed the jury on the basis that the issue was identification. Viewed objectively, the alibi was probably not water-tight and for the Defendant to form the view that the less said on the topic the better and the last thing she wanted was for attention to be focussed on possible lies in that respect by the defendant, let alone his parents, was entirely reasonable. Her view was that there were valid points to be made on the identification evidence and therein lay Mr Popat’s best chance of an acquittal. Put more legalistically; the Defendant’s view of the matter and her decision cannot, in my view, fairly be described as one that no competent counsel could share.’

Judges:

Buckley J

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-2004, [2004] EWHC 741 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave to appealPopat v Barnes CA 10-Jun-2004
The claimant’s allegation of professional negligence against his barrister for the conduct of his criminal trial had been dismissed. He now sought leave to appeal. The decision had been made not to alert the judge to a deficiency in the alibi . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPopat v Barnes CA 10-Jun-2004
The claimant’s allegation of professional negligence against his barrister for the conduct of his criminal trial had been dismissed. He now sought leave to appeal. The decision had been made not to alert the judge to a deficiency in the alibi . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198721