Friday, November 01, 2013

Goodbye Old Friend

My long standing friend, defence solicitor John Cochrane, met me for a pint last week, and told me that he has appeared in court for the last time. He is a victim, along with many others, of the emasculation of Legal Aid, and plans to move away from London. The cost of his practising certificate and  professional indemnity insurance would be such that it would hardly be worth his while to carry on working, especially as he is less than a year off pension age. I shall miss him. He is a very good advocate, thorough and professional, but has never taken himself too seriously. I have often shared a lunchtime glass with him, and gone back into court to deal impartially and professionally with his case, exactly as we should do. He won an excellent Abuse of Process argument before us one day, and I still remember that his case was based on R v Croydon Justices, although that name is all that I do remember. When a good friend of mine was involved in a tragic road accident I had no hesitation in pointing him towards John, who did a first class job at a court some way away. I hope to see him in Court Seven* when he comes back to visit his old haunts. 

*Court Seven is the preferred name for the pub round the corner from the court.

11 comments:

  1. Many good advocates are likely to be casualties of the governments policies. Whilst I have no argument with tackling the excesses and waste tthat are ( or were) aplenty in legal aid. Enough is enough!

    If we are not careful we are going to walk into the position where the innocent are going to be convicted to readily. The checks and balances just will not be there as lawyers wonder more about how they are going to feed the kids rather than defend their clients.

    Lagal aid has been too eay in the past and a rebalance was necessary- but what this lot are doing is going far too far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I have often shared a lunchtime glass with him, and gone back into court to deal impartially and professionally with his case, exactly as we should do."

    Nothing like justice being SEEN to done...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a doctor repaired to the pub at lunch before afternoon outpatients, then he or she would be negatively appraised and probably disciplined.

      Delete
  3. I'm with anon 21.33. This is ridiculous. On the rare occasions a friend of mine has been in court I have either had the case moved or had it dealt with by my colleagues while I sat out. You had a beer with an advocate then heard the guy's cases? Talk about looking impartial? I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What do you think judges and barristers do? They may have come from the same chambers but always behave in the same professional manner.
    The Garrick Club is full night after night with judges QCs and junior counsel but they still oppose each other in court the next morning. My conscience is quite clear thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes but you're not a judge or a barrister. Having a drink with an advocate at lunch then going back to court to hear his cases is outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Plus your conscience isn't the issue really is it? It how it looks to others. I'd have thought you'd have worked that out by now. Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The Garrick Club is full night after night with judges QCs and junior counsel but they still oppose each other in court the next morning. My conscience is quite clear thank you."

    Maybe, but not exactly the place where they will be seen by other court users in the way magistrates may be seen in the local pub.

    Whilst not doubting the ability to be professional and impartial, the issue is one of justice being seen to be done by the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Before anyone gets too excited, this wasn't a pub, but a members' club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m afraid members’ club perhaps makes things worse. The test for apparent bias (Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357) starts with the view of “the fair-minded and informed observer” – i.e. the view of an observer who does know all the relevant facts. One of which here is the fact that the beak was having a drink in private with a representative of one of the parties immediately before the case was heard. To have done this openly in a pub might have been less dubious. From a different angle, could anyone be happy if it was this drink in private had been with the prosecutor?

      Delete
  9. I'd expect my Legal Advisor to have some serious words to say even if I had a "lunchtime glass" on my own! The catering facilities (cafe) in my court are so poor that many of my colleagues wont use them in case they end up in the queue next to parties from either side, and get engaged in conversation. The idea that you would regularly socialise with those before you seems alien to me - and conflicts with all my training. To do it on the day of the trial is even worse.

    I have no doubt that I could act fairly if friends were representing clients before me, and that perhaps closer relationships might help all sides understand each other and work a little more efficiently - but I don't think it would appear that way. I am astonished that you don't see the perception issue.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.