So bad it's almost good

Sometimes, very rarely, a court appearance can be so bad that it probably end up helping the client rather than hurting him. Needless to say that is never a tactic which should be deliberately adopted!

Crunch Time

Many years ago I was in a case when I was still very junior. I had only been a tenant in Chambers (i.e. made a full member) for about a year. When you finish pupillage (your "on-the-job training") you will either be kept on as a tenant in Chambers or not. Once you are a tenant in Chambers, you usually have to do something pretty dramatic to be thrown out. As a pupil you will already have started to do some cases of your own. Therefore the most critical moment in any legal career is getting a tenancy, a permanent place in Chambers.

One day you do not know if you will still be in Chambers the following week. The next day you know you're likely to be able to stay there for the next 40 years. You know that you will have the chance to continue to do cases. Therefore this is an awesome leap.

A Promise

I was doing a burglary case in the juvenile court. There were two defendants and I represented one. The other defendant was represented by a pupil from another Chambers. He was very nervous. He had not done a trial before. He also knew that I was very friendly with the junior tenant in his chambers. He was plainly worried that if he put in a rubbish performance I would tell my friend, and that the word would go round that he was useless. Since soon his tenancy application was to be considered, that might be the end of his career.

In an attempt to minimise what looked to me like an anxiety attack, at his request before the trial started I faithfully promised him that I would not tell anyone in his chambers about any errors he made or any failings in his performance.

Inadmissible Evidence

There was some evidence against both of our clients which was not admissible. (The prosecution cannot just put in any evidence against the defendant: it has to be evidence which fits in with the rules as to what you're allowed to put in). Therefore it would not go in. It would only be revealed if either of us asked the wrong questions. (Whilst the prosecution might not be allowed to ask a witness a question, sometimes if the defence are stupid enough to ask the wrong question the very evidence which the prosecution wanted to go in and were not allowed to put in goes in anyway). In addition there was an obvious gap in the prosecution case which it was important not to fill. There were thus some questions which must not be asked. It was critical to both defendants, if they were to be acquitted, that those questioned should not be asked. I went through this carefully with my nervous friend, explained to him precisely what he was not to ask any questions about and why, and obtained his agreement. (As regards these points, the interests of both defendants were the same: obviously if this had been something which assisted his client but was against my client's interests, that would have been no concern of his, but these were matters which affected both our clients equally).

All the wrong questions

He had obviously listened very carefully, because all of these questions seemed to be seared onto his brain. He asked all of them. Every time he asked a question, it was obvious that he suddenly realised it was a question he shouldn't have asked. The performance degenerated into farce. In its own way it was monumentally entertaining. Even the magistrates were finding it hard not to laugh. My juvenile client, and his mother, notwithstanding that the effect of the questioning meant that he might find himself in the juvenile version of prison, were in fits of giggles during the cross-examination. The pupil made a heroic and unintentionally screamingly funny attempt to rescue the position in his closing speech, but merely succeeded in emphasising all the points that we were trying to avoid. (As well as causing more laughter). Both defendants were convicted.

Lenient Magistrates

They could both have expected, given all the circumstances, relatively harsh sentences. They received absurdly lenient sentences. It was plain to me that the magistrates clearly thought that the circumstances had meant that the defendants hadn't really had a fair trial and therefore it would be unfair to be harsh. Since they might well have been convicted anyway, (and both had previous convictions) the result was probably as good as they could have expected in the circumstances. They and their parents were certainly all happy.

Mr Bean as Barrister

Therefore in a sense this performance was so bad that it ended up in effect being good. It was probably a one off. It was a "Mr Bean tries to be a barrister" impersonation before Mr Bean had even been thought of.

What happened to the pupil? I kept my promise, and to this day have never told this story in such a way as to reveal his identity. He obviously learned from his mistakes, ended up being kept on as a tenant, and has had a successful career since.

This shows two things. Firstly, that even when you think something is the end of the world, it probably isn't. Secondly, that for all his bungling during questioning, he at least managed to ask one important and correct question that day. When he asked me to keep quiet about anything that happened. He got the right answer as well.

Michael J. Booth QC