Letter: The case for independent barristers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I am grateful to Patricia Wynn Davies ("Solicitors set to present cases in the higher courts", 23 September) for reminding your readers that it costs the taxpayer less to have an independent barrister prosecute average three-day jury trials than it would to use a lawyer employed by the Crown Prosecution Service.
More important reasons why independent advocates should continue to present the prosecution's case to a jury have been identified by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct.
In June 1995 the committee recommended that independent advocates (solicitors or barristers) should continue to conduct the prosecution of the majority of jury trials. It considered the question of whether specially qualified lawyers employed by the CPS might conduct those crown court cases which involve the least serious offences or do not involve a jury. Only a minority of the committee favoured this. The majority took account of the need, in a modern democracy, for the power of the state to be open to scrutiny. Their principal concern was that the employed advocate's ability to maintain sufficient independence could well be undermined or that he or she might become "prosecution- minded".
DAVID PENRY-DAVEY QC
Chairman, General Council of the Bar
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments