As I approach the end of my time in the legal profession, I have had the opportunity of considering how things have changed, but also how things have remained as they ever were. I qualified initially in 1988 as a barrister before crossing over to the solicitors’ profession in 1991; this gives me over 35 years’ experience in legal practice.
Back in 1988, the law and practice were substantially different to the current regime. The Crown Prosecution Service was a fledgling service but it was clear to all that it was here to stay. The introduction of a defendant’s previous convictions was significantly more restrictive - it usually required that the Defence did something first which would cause the accused to “lose his shield”, such as making a misleading assertion of good character or an attack on the character of a Prosecution witness. The concept of confiscation of the proceeds of a person’s criminal activity was very much in its infancy. We also had such wonders as committal proceedings with ‘live’ witnesses and even handwritten ‘contemporaneous notes of interview’ with the police.
Nowadays we are accustomed to Prosecution applications to introduce previous convictions as part of their case almost as a matter of routine; the Proceeds of Crime Act, known universally as “POCA”, is now part of the day-to-day jargon of criminal litigation and interviews are recorded directly onto cloud-based servers (although it still tickles me to hear of officers talking about “tape recordings”).
In many ways, one of the most significant changes was the abolition of committal proceedings. The idea was that the case would move swiftly to the appropriate forum for trial but there would be a safety net for cases which needed to be weeded out, in the form of an “application to dismiss”. The reality, of course, is slightly different. Applications to dismiss are very rarely made and extremely rarely successful. Committal proceedings, however, offered a practical and efficient opportunity in which to identify and bring to a swift end weak cases. It also enabled us to establish very quickly whether a complainant would attend to support a Prosecution case, rather than having to wait months for that to take place at the point of trial, with all the increased costs and inconvenience. It also meant there were more appearances at the Magistrates’ Court which enabled more contact with professional colleagues and interactions with the Crown Prosecution Service which had numerous positive results in so many directions.
The introduction of the Digital Case System, whilst initially the subject of lawyers’ predictably negative conservative responses, has in many ways turned out to be a real improvement. Some of its benefits come from its practical and user-friendly qualities. It fills me with despair, bordering on horror, that this effective and functional system will soon be replaced by the Common Platform which is, in my view, quite probably the worst single innovation in over 30 years of criminal practice.
Necessarily, so much more of the work is computer-based. As a young lawyer, my desk would be covered with pieces of paper, pens and pencils and there would not be a computer screen anywhere in sight. Now we endeavour to work in a paperless environment, although I will confess (and many visitors to my office will testify) that some old habits have steadfastly refused to die.
Many things have therefore changed but much has remained the same. New laws are passed and we continue to find ways to work within, and occasionally, around them. The most rewarding aspect of the work is the human interaction, whether it is with clients, colleagues or even opponents.
The real attraction for me of working in criminal litigation was always that it was about the individuals involved and was not concerned with other people's money. Successive governments have sought to make the criminal justice system a robotic, even arithmetical process; the diminution of the human element will only ever be a bad thing.
When I was a student in Southampton in the 1980’s, so long ago that Lawrie McMenemy was still the manager of the Saints and Peter Shilton was in goal, I attended a presentation by local barristers aimed at those of us who were considering a future in the legal profession. Some of the younger, more recently qualified lawyers were at pains to point out the difficulties, the demands and the pressures of the work. At the end of the talk, a rather more world-weary and well-travelled barrister stood up and said that he had never heard such nonsense and that this was the best job in the world. I am pleased to say that in many respects, I continue after all these years to agree with him.