Reviews
I have been at sea for over two weeks and without any internet connection. I’ve missed two episodes of Silk but I will catch up with those thanks to BBC iPlayer and see what Martha Costello has been up to. So wait for those comments in due course.
In the meantime a number of people have written reviews about my novel Crucial Evidence on Amazon and on Good Reads. Some of the comments confirm what I have long suspected; that many people have very little idea about how the Criminal Justice system works. In particular one criticism of the novel was that Cassie Hardman gave away too much information about the case of R v Barker, because he believed the the proceeding were private. I do wonder if that is because cases are rarely reported in full in the newspapers these days, although the case involving Rebekah Brooks has been followed fairly closely in the news and we are getting a blow by blow account of the Pistorius case.
Perhaps the Bar ought to do more to ensure the general public do understand the process and how important it is and then perhaps the public would be more supportive of the Bar in their fight against cuts to Legal Aid.
Incidentally Crucial Evidence is receiving 4 to 5 star reviews on Amazon.
Silk series 3 episode 4
Interesting episode. Special Counsel are usually selected from a small number of barristers known to the Security Authorities, and I understand work in Government buildings not their own chambers. Still it made for good television.
Did Martha make the right call about Amy’s complaint or has her own relationship with Billy coloured her judgement. She appears to have misjudged her client in this episode as well.
While the embarrassment of Caroline was artfully engineered allowing her to escape an unfortunate result in her trial because she was unprepared.
There is no such thing as cheap justice, there is justice and injustice one is priceless and one costs everything.
This reminded me of why I was a lawyer – fighting for justice.
I recently had a conversation with a friend I had not seen or heard from for a very long time. We had been at University together and had both studied law. He had gone off and done something else.
He had heard about the recent strike and wondered what it was all about. “What’s the problem, you lot get paid loads?” After a long explanation from me he was less surprised that there were so many of us wondering what we were going to do and considering doing something else than why we weren’t all doing something already. He could not understand that so many seemingly talented, clever and committed people didn’t apply there talents elsewhere and make more money.
Yesterday, as I drove back thirty five miles from one of the “local courts” having dealt with a regular client, who shouted at me, blamed me for his initial remand…
View original post 2,302 more words
Silk Episode 3
‘Clerking is about playing the long game,’ was Billy’s comment to Jake as they ambled up Middle Temple Lane. I think that’s something most barrister’s clerks would agree with. Spotting the young barrister who is going to be successful, is one of the skills most clerks would pride themselves on. The problem with that approach as I suspect Jake may find out is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the clerks give the best work to the one they have identified as a winner and so he becomes one. It’s one of the reasons so many women become the second choice of solicitors, they are the second choice of the clerks.
I am sure the scenes are shot in and around the Temple and at the Old Bailey. They certainly looked like the real thing to me.
The trial for murder of a severely disabled young women by her mother handled a difficult issue well and the speeches and cross examination were closer to the real thing than some episodes. The child witnesses were shown being interviewed by the barristers and then that slipped into the courtroom, so that the viewer saw the end of the evidence as if they were in court. The usual procedure is for the a prosecution witness, whether a child or some other vulnerable person to be interviewed by a trained police officer before the trial begins. The video is part of the Crown’s case and has to be disclosed to the defence as part of the prosecution case. It is unlikely his father would be present as there would be a fear that his presence might affect what the child might say – a real risk in this case as the witness might be saying what he thought his father, a committed Catholic and therefore against suicide, would want to hear. Of course as Television it worked perfectly. Cross examining a child is never easy and this was shown by Martha beginning as most barristers would be introducing herself and then she keeping the questions low key. Did you notice the judge and barristers had taken their wigs off – again as it happens in real life.
We have the contest for head of chambers in the next episode – should be interesting!
The periodic table of storytelling
This is a terrific way of looking at story telling.
I’ve run across one of the neatest sites/resources for story telling, the periodic table of storytelling. It’s an interactive periodic table with all sort of great information for people who want to know the art of story-telling. Warning though, this website is super addictive, and you can spend all day on it!
Enjoy.
Silk Episode 2
How could Clive Reader ask such an obvious leading question? There were very few inaccuracies in this episode, and I suspect that was because there were fewer courtroom scenes, but that leading question did stand out. In case anyone doesn’t know what a leading question is – it’s a question that suggests the answer to the witness. It used to puzzle me when I first qualified but I was told I would know one when my opponent asked one and the advice was right.
In contrast I thought the scene where Caroline Warwick cross examines the defendant in the rape trial was worthy of an experienced barrister. Of course she really shouldn’t have been sent off to Bury St Edmunds to prosecute in a rape trial and her indignation is understandable. Unfortunately women are instructed in sexual abuse cases far too often, and I remember a very senior female Silk…
View original post 390 more words
Silk Episode 2
How could Clive Reader ask such an obvious leading question? There were very few inaccuracies in this episode, and I suspect that was because there were fewer courtroom scenes, but that leading question did stand out. In case anyone doesn’t know what a leading question is – it’s a question that suggests the answer to the witness. It used to puzzle me when I first qualified but I was told I would know one when my opponent asked one and the advice was right.
In contrast I thought the scene where Caroline Warwick cross examines the defendant in the rape trial was worthy of an experienced barrister. Of course she really shouldn’t have been sent off to Bury St Edmunds to prosecute in a rape trial and her indignation is understandable. Unfortunately women are instructed in sexual abuse cases far too often, and I remember a very senior female Silk complaining about being given yet another rape trial. One thing that did jar however was her rudeness to the barrister defending in the case. Silks try to be nice to more junior members of the Bar as they can often be the source of work. Although Martha Costello is shown representing a defendant without a junior barrister, Silks usually have a junior barrister with them. If a junior barrister is instructed and wants a Silk to lead them in the case they are unlikely to suggest someone who has been rude to them.
Amy Lang is a new pupil in chambers – a trainee barrister. Once a young lawyer passes their exams, they are called to the bar in a ceremony at the Inn of Court of which they are a member, but they are not allowed to practice until they have completed pupillage. For twelve months they serve a kind of apprenticeship, accompanying their pupilmaster (never a Silk) to court, reading their briefs and doing any paperwork they are asked to do. The first six months they can not appear in court or accept instructions on their own behalf and now they are assisted by their chambers with a grant. In the second six they are able to work and will receive payment – fees for that work. Amy should have already done six months as a pupil so her ignorance about the acronyms was a little surprising. Poor Amy makes a complete hash of her first appearance in court – she isn’t the only one and won’t be the last- but a ruling that your instructing solicitors should pay the costs of the hearing is a real no-no. A barrister is meant to cover the back of their instructing solicitors . She was lucky that Billy was in a good mood-upsetting solicitors who regularly instruct chambers could have ruined her chances of success
Waiting for the jury to return with a verdict is a difficult time,many barristers escape to the Bar mess, drink coffee with friends, read the newspaper and a few try to work, but concentrating is often impossible. For Martha the client comes first, so she spends the time with him. It is a reflection of the type of barrister she is;as Clive says she always ends up liking her clients, so she stasy with him.
6 Ways You Can Know Your Characters Better
6 Ways You Can Know Your Characters Better.
This is such good advice that I think it’s worth repeating. Print out a copy and pin by your computer or what ever writing device you use.
Silk on BBC
I really enjoy this series, although at times the errors in the legal process make me want to squirm. The courtroom scenes are awful – it just isn’t like that and no-one who behaved as Martha Costello does would ever get Silk.
However the tensions that arose in this first episode are very real. I’ve been in the Court of Appeal (awful place three ghouls ready to tear every comment, every argument to shreds particularly if you defend ) and wanted to shout at the judges that they are being unfair and can’t they see how the evidence has been concocted. But, you don’t do it, you sit in your seat, stand when you have to stand you do it, and show respect to the court even if you don’t feel it.
Then there is the criticism that Martha is too emotional. Clive Reader tells her in this first episode that she is acting like the client’s mother not his lawyer and that is another conflict in a legal life, trying to be as objective as you can because that is the best thing for your client. The reason for that is that if you fight a case you can’t possibly win and the client is convicted then he will be given a tougher sentence than he would if he pleaded guilty. In this episode I believe the correct course of action would have been for the client David Cowdray to have pleaded guilty to manslaughter ( the Crown would probably have accepted that on the basis that he could not have reasonably foreseen that pushing the police officer would result in him falling and hitting his head on a metal lamp post which then resulted in his death ) The court would then have asked for Social Enquiry Reports which would have identified his schizophrenia. Martha could then have argued that instead of a prison sentence he should receive a Hospital Order for him to be treated for his illness. So bad law but good story line.
There is another rule broken for the sake of the drama; never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. The photographs taken of the police officers together outside a house while one of them was still giving evidence did reveal a breach of the rules, but no barrister would use that without knowing whose house it was. In the scene where David’s girlfriend confirms that he had a camera and the police took it, Martha realises she can’t call her as a witness because when she was cross examined by counsel for the prosecution she would give evidence that would support the Crown’s case. These are the sort of decisions a barrister makes every day, the programme makes them more extreme.
The senior clerk Billy Lamb could have been based on my original clerk. Old fashioned, not really interested in change. I am looking forward to the arguments between him and the new practice manager Harriet.
Looking forward to Episode 2.
scribblingadvocate 