Court of Appeal tells barrister she is being “over-sensitive” with complaints about trial judge’s behaviour


Hallett: relationship between judge and counsel deteriorated significantly

The vice-president of the Court of Appeal’s criminal division has told a barrister who complained about a trial judge that she was over-sensitive and lacked an “understanding of the role of the judge in managing a jury trial”.

Lady Justice Hallett said that while Her Honour Justice Kaul QC should not have expressed her feelings about counsel’s behaviour in front of their clients, the judge did not allow her “undoubted exasperation” to affect the fairness of the trial

One of the grounds of appeal brought on behalf of two of the four defendants in R v Barkauskas [2017] EWCA Crim 1210 was that the judge demonstrated disproportionate hostility to the defence to the extent that the defendants were deprived of a fair trial, in what was a retrial.

Examples were criticisms she made of the two defendants’ counsel at a pre-trial review, her attitude to one of the barristers being ill during the retrial, and stating in front of the defendants that one of the barristers delivered “some of the poorest cross-examination I have ever seen” in relation to one issue in the original trial.

HHJ Kaul was also said to have “summoned counsel’s instructing solicitors to court on two separate occasions to criticise counsel”; the repeated criticism led to one the defendants writing to the judge to ask whether she was suggesting he should change counsel.

The appeal argued that, whilst most of this happened in the absence of the jury, it nevertheless impacted on the general atmosphere in the court and on the defendants’ perception of the fairness of his trial.

Hallett LJ said it was a “sad fact” that the relationship between counsel for the defendants and the judge “deteriorated significantly”.

Though it was not the appeal court’s job to determine whether counsel behaved unprofessionally, she said “we have a number of very real concerns about counsel’s behaviour”.

She continued: “Many of the defence applications were totally unmeritorious, bad points were taken and much court time wasted. Some of the submissions (of both the applicants’ counsel) suggest a lack of proper respect for the court.

“[One counsel’s] complaints about the judge’s favouring others such as the jury or co-defending counsel indicate an unfortunate over sensitivity, lack of objectivity and lack of understanding of the role of the judge in managing a jury trial. We do not expect counsel to behave or react in this way.”

Hallett LJ said that, with the benefit of hindsight, “and not having ourselves been troubled by a ‘constant barrage’ of demands and complaints”, it might have been better if HHJ Kaul had not expressed her feelings about counsel’s behaviour to the extent that she did in the presence of the defendants.

“It would also have been better had the judge kept her email communications to a minimum. It is one thing to send out directions or simple requests electronically, it is another to send emails containing explanations and reasons for rulings and thereby prompting an electronic debate with counsel. This kind of discussion should be reserved for court hearings.

“Nonetheless, the judge did not allow her undoubted exasperation at counsel’s behaviour to affect the fairness of the trial.

“None of the incidents on which reliance was placed occurred in the presence of the jury and there is nothing before us to suggest that the judge’s criticism of defence counsel impacted on the applicants personally.”

This and all the other grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The judge has made a complaint about counsel’s conduct to the Bar Standards Board. We have not named them in this article because the ruling does not identify them fully.




    Readers Comments

  • Janis says:

    I was a party litigant in a civil case about the deprivation
    Of liberty of my brother. I finally had my case accepted
    In the Court of Session and decided as I was not legally
    trained to instruct a solicitor and advocate, in Scotland
    Barristers are called Advocates.
    At the hearing the advocate was shouted at by one of the Senior Judges ,he just clammed up and hardly
    Spoke about my case.Can I ask for a rehearing ?


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.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

16 November 2018

Transparency is about a lot more than just price

The transparency agenda is much more than the figures you put on your website; it all comes back to communication, the root of so many lawyers’ problems if you look at the types of complaint that go to the Legal Ombudsman.

Read More