CA slates barristers whose failures led it to wrongly quash conviction

Carr: No acceptable excuse for what happened

The Court of Appeal has strongly criticised barristers for not realising that the transcript of a trial was incorrect because they had not paid attention to the judge’s summing-up at the time.

This led the court earlier this month to quash a man’s conviction for serious sexual offences.

However, the court has now revoked the order after the error was discovered by chance.

Lady Justice Carr said: “Making all due allowances for the sometimes difficult circumstances in which the publicly funded criminal Bar has to operate, we regret to say that there simply can be no acceptable excuse for what has happened here.”

Ilhan Sakin (IS) was jailed for 14 years for multiple offences linked to the forced and controlled prostitution of two vulnerable women.

The appeal court allowed his appeal on the basis that the trial judge, Her Honour Judge Charles in Croydon, had failed to sum up IS’s evidence to the jury.

“Ms Meek for IS, Ms Merrick for [the co-defendant] MG and Mr Khan for the [Crown Prosecution Service], all of whom were trial counsel below, confirmed to us that she had failed to do so and that the transcript of the summing-up to that effect was accurate,” Carr LJ recounted.

“In these circumstances, we concluded that IS’s convictions had to be regarded as unsafe.”

However, it turned out that HHJ Charles had summed up IS’s evidence: “The transcript was incomplete and counsel’s recollections, to the extent that they can have existed at all, were inaccurate.”

A few days after the original appeal ruling, counsel for IS appeared before HHJ Charles on another matter. The judge made an “informal enquiry” about IS’s appeal and counsel told her what had happened.

She went back to check her notes and listen to the audio file, as did IS’s counsel. They immediately informed the Court of Appeal registrar that she had in fact summed up the evidence.

Carr LJ said the court had “no hesitation” in revising its order and dismissing the appeal against conviction.

“It is self-evidently in the interests of justice to do so. Indeed, but for what was a purely fortuitous encounter between defence counsel and the judge, a serious miscarriage of justice would have occurred. That is a sobering thought.”

Carr LJ said counsel had “very properly apologised for not paying attention to the judge’s summing up and for what is described as their ‘blind reliance’ on the accuracy of the transcript”.

The transcription company, Ubiqus, and the individual transcriber had apologised too, putting it down to “inadvertent human error”.

The judge continued: “But the transcriber’s failure cannot absolve counsel who cannot have paid any attention to, let alone made any meaningful notes of, the judge’s summing up.

“We underscore that it is a core duty of trial advocates, both for the prosecution and defence, to focus on the judicial summing-up at the time that it is given.

“This is necessary for the proper discharge of the advocate’s overriding duty to the court in the due administration of justice (to which the advocate’s duty to act in the best interests of his or her client is subject).

“In particular, it is the advocate’s duty to raise promptly with the judge what appears to be a material error in the summing-up, whether it be of law or fact, at the time of the summing-up.”

As it would have been “a most unusual omission by a judge who was obviously otherwise well-prepared and methodical in her approach to the summing-up”, counsel should have checked the audio files themselves “at least by the time of the full appeal hearing”, Carr LJ went on.

When asked at the hearing whether the transcript was accurate, they “ought at the very least to have indicated that they had no direct recollection of the summing-up and that they had not themselves checked the accuracy of the transcript”.

    Readers Comments

  • William Halpern says:

    Such is the state of criminal justice in 2021. This would never have happened pre legal aid cuts when counsel would have been paid properly for their time for preparing cases and appearing in court. A professional service is compromised when proper remuneration is taken away. It amazes me that any barristers or solicitors are still agreeing to undertake any publicly funded work after what successive governments have done with legal aid and stripping down the entire criminal justice system.

  • Saras says:

    This calls for serious validation of the legal education and training of solicitors and Barristers in this country and people without LLB should not be qualifying for the Bar or the Law Society membership as solicitors. Time to have good professional quality of legal education as a lawyer.

  • Stephen Carter says:

    Pity the transcribe. The last pay increase I had was in 1990. Every tendering round our rate of pay goes down. The amount of time we have to transcribe has been reduced. We are not provided with any case documents, just a useless log kept by untrained court staff.

  • William Schwenck says:

    (i) Legal qualifications have nothing to do with this case. It was about laziness and a failure to pay attention. (ii) Very few lawyers have an LLB because most universities award a BA if you study law. (iii) Any aspiring lawyer who slapped together two such sloppy and ungrammatical sentences as you have done would not go far as either a barrister or a solicitor.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Keeping the conversation going beyond Pride Month

As I reflect on all the celebrations of Pride Month 2024, I ask myself why there remains hesitancy amongst LGBTQ+ staff members about when it comes to being open about their identity in the workplace.

Third-party managed accounts: Your key questions answered

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has given strong indications that it is headed towards greater restrictions on law firms when it comes to handling client money.

Understanding vicarious trauma in the legal workplace

Vicarious trauma can happen to anyone who works with clients who have experienced trauma such as domestic or other violence, child abuse, sexual assault, torture or being a refugee.

Loading animation