It's difficult to reconcile that with her decision to appear personally before the Court of Appeal to argue for an increase in the sentences of the killers of Andrew Harper. The judges pointed out that she hadn't pointed to even one area where she claimed the judge had failed to follow sentencing guidelines, which is self-evidently what any appeal against sentence must focus on. They said that what her argument came down to was that the judge should have violated the guidelines. Any first year law student could identify what was wrong with that approach. When the Court of Appeal accuses a barrister of making "to say the least, an unusual submission,” that's polite code for "You're talking total bollocks".
I mean, I get it that she was jumping on a political bandwagon, because she perceived it as a populist cause, but then she totally scuppered any kudos she might have got from it by being so utterly incompetent. If you're going to indulge in a piece of populist grandstanding, you should at least put some welly into it.