I do not believe that before trial the defence asked to inspect the negatives and they did not instruct a photographic expert.
?? I really don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless.
It is possible to get legal approval to instruct experts but Kingsley Napley were not adept at this. Their use of experts in the run up to trial and at trial was weak.
This is one thing I've already independently noted myself. It stands out when I read the transcripts - the weakness of the defence expert evidence and the lack of depth and scope. It's almost like they just couldn't be bothered.
The second problem was that although the defence leading counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, was very experienced he was a prosecutor. This was the first defence case he had undertaken.
You mean, this was the first major defence case he had
led? Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial? Please tell me that is so. I'd hate to think the defence solicitors appointed a barrister with no relevant defence experience. That's just asking for it. I realise most of the criminal bar tend to verge towards one side or the other, but he must have had substantial defence experience to become a Queen's Counsel, surely?
I also note that at the time of the trial, he was a part-time judge: it's quite common, I understand, for barristers in practice to also accept appointment as recorders and sit as judge in Crown Court hearings. Nothing wrong with that - in fact, the experience and kudos it gave him must have helped with his trial work for both prosecution and defence - but it also suggests somebody who was hedging his bets career-wise and perhaps wasn't fully committed. I can't imagine George Carmen doing the same, and I gather than Anthony Arlidge never took up a recordership or served as a deputy master, though I could be wrong.
What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate? I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel. That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis. However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases. The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.
Then there's Lawson. I have found at least one newspaper article where he is quoted as bad-mouthing Jeremy. Was he indiscreet?