I’m a criminal law QC AMA

[Nusername]

Defense and prosecution. Mostly rape and murder but also serious fraud, assault and sexual offences.

Do you remember your first case? How influenced where you (if at all) by fiction / movies/tv programmes?

How many years had you been practising before you took silk?

Do you prefer defence or prosecution?

Where (geographically) do you practice?

Can you describe a rough outline of your education and career path?

I have three degrees. Started at 17.

I practice in the UK - would prefer not to be more specific.

I was practicing for 17 years before I took silk.

I find defending more pressurised because of the expectation I can pull rabbits out of hats. That said when prosecuting the sense of responsibility to the IP or family is enormous.

Would you advise a woman that you loved (family/friend or yourself) to report a sexual offence to the police?

I can’t remember my exact first case but it would have been magistrates and a standard theft or something similar. Things stand out obviously but not the very first case for some reason

Truthfully I would hesitate before advising anyone to pursue a complaint in respect of a sexual crime. But if I thought they were robust I would advise it. It’s very tough for a complainant

Does the gender breakdown of the jury make any difference to whether the defendant in a tape trial is found guilty?
I know there would be a lot of other factors at play but this is something I have been wondering about.

Sorry, that should read rape trial, obviously.

How many defendants tell you that they are guilty? Or do they all insist they are innocent?

And if they did admit guilt how does this affect how you can proceed?

We tend to believe that women are actually less forgiving of women complainants. I never get to speak to ex jury members but that’s the feed back from police and jury officials who do.

If a client tells me they are guilty I am duty bound to only act in accordance with that information. Technically that means I can “put the prosecution on proofs” but 99.9% of the time it means I represent in a plea of guilty.
I know we don’t have a great reputation but most of my colleagues, if not all, will never lie to a court

Is it true that if a defendant admits their guilt to you, you can’t advise them to plead innocent?

Ever defended anyone you were convinced was innocent who was convicted?

Do you think the jury system should be scrapped?

What does 'put the prosecution on proofs' mean?? Sorry if it's obvious and I'm missing it...

What do you wish we all knew about the justice system?

Putting the pros on proof smena attesting the evidence. As in challenging the admissibility of evidence etc and generally seeing what can be done to reduce the prosecution case to nothing. But without a clear instruction to,assert innocence it isn’t going anywhere.
Most clients won’t instruct that they’re guilty unless they intend to plead guilty.

Representing a client who asserts innocence, and appears to have a well founded basis for doing so, is the most stressful brief that exists.

Do you think most juries are capable of understanding lengthy and complex fraud cases? Do you think a different system would be better?

In my opinion the jury system works. Juries are generally, if not always, remarkably attentive, assiduous and sensible.

My daughter is doing GCSEs and did work experience recently in a magistrates court. She found it fascinating and had preciously expressed interest in law. But every person she met counselled against going into criminal law because “there’s no money in it”. Obvs money not everything, but...

Do you love what you do? Would you encourage your daughter (if you have/had one) to go into criminal law/the bar? Would a non-law degree hold her back if she then did the conversion course? She had a cousin who is in chambers but she read law for her first degree and then seems to have networked like crazy to get into a Chambers. With huge financial help from parents to subsidise unpaid mini pupillage/internship.

There are definitely ways of reducing the issues in complex white collar crime trials so that juries can effectively tackle the real issues. It’d take me a week to say how

There’s no money at all in criminal practice for new incumbents. It’s a fool’s game. Being honest.

That’s interesting. I personally would not want to be tried by a jury as I think there is the potential for them not to understand the evidence or be swayed by a good witness inappropriately etc.

I love what I do but I’m established to the point where I feature in national broadsheets at least on e a week. I couldn’t begin to imagine starting now.