Holding Your Nerve
Whatever other qualities a barrister must have, courage is one of them. There will always be times when you have to have the nerve to advance your client's interests, even though you are being lambasted by the judge, or are having to represent someone who is unpopular or odious or both. As the fictional barrister Rumpole effectively said (in one of the stories written by John Mortimer QC), when someone expressed surprise to Rumpole that he of all people should be defending a right-wing extremist charged with a criminal offence, the fact that he defended murderers did not mean that he approved of murder.
Perhaps the most significant example of having the courage to do your job regardless of the consequences, was the barrister John Cooke. He is the subject of the excellent book The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson QC. John Cooke was the barrister who prosecuted Charles the First, hence leading to the King's execution. This was the brief that no one wanted. Anyone who prosecuted the King would be a prime target for royalist sympathisers. So it proved when the monarchy was restored, and after what was effectively a "show trial" Cooke was convicted and received the dreadful punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering. That meant that while he was still alive his genitals were cut off, his stomach opened, and his innards burned before his face. Since ultimately if royalist government was restored it was likely that that was the way those responsible for the King's death would be treated, it is not surprising that no one wanted this brief. John Cooke did what he thought was his duty, and paid the price.
Fortunately barristers do not generally have to display anything like that degree of courage or face anything like those potential consequences. Keeping your nerve in the client's interest is still vital. There was a good recent example. Peter Crampin QC had to appear in front of a judge to make an application asking the judge not to sit on a trial on the grounds of "apparent bias" (this will be explored in more detail in this Friday's article). The judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, did not react well to this. He told the barrister that his remarks "could have professional consequences". That could plainly have indicated that it might not have been in the barrister's own interests to carry on with the application. It plainly indicated that to do so could have a detrimental effect on his career.
However Peter Crampin QC continued regardless. Although the judge did not allow his application, on the appeal the Court of Appeal did. The appeal judges went out of their way to point out that not only had Mr Crampin behaved properly throughout, but that he was justified in making the application. Thus ultimately not only did standing his ground serve his client’s purposes, but has also cast him in a favourable light before the appeal court and in the press. (Fortune favours the brave).
However, whether the story ends well for the advocate or not, the position is clear. A barrister’s duty (obviously operating within the rules) is to fearlessly represent the client's interests. Everything else, including your own interests, comes a very poor second.