Mr L was not happy with his barrister, however we found the service to be reasonable...
Mr L instructed the barrister to represent him at trial during a criminal matter. Mr L maintained his innocence, however he was convicted of a criminal offence and was given a custodial sentence.
Mr L was unhappy with the barrister’s representation and felt that this is what led to his conviction. Mr L said the barrister told him that the prospects of overturning the conviction were low, but this was different to what the barrister had previously told his family member.
He requested that the Legal Ombudsman investigate that:
We decided that the barrister’s service was reasonable for all three complaints.
Service providers are expected to use their professional judgement to decide how best to represent their clients, which is based on their expertise and experience of dealing with similar cases.
There was no evidence to show that the barrister’s advice and decisions were clearly incorrect, and we decided that the barrister exercised their professional judgement reasonably. The barrister explained that he did not call Mr L’s partner as a witness as the other side had already identified issues with their statement. This meant there was a risk that their evidence would not have supported Mr L’s case. We also recognised that this would not be an independent witness, so the judge may not place any weight on this evidence.
For complaint two, the barrister said he did not challenge the police officers’ statements as they were supported by DNA and CCTV evidence that Mr L did not dispute.
For complaint three, the evidence showed that the barrister’s advice did not change. When Mr L’s family member asked about an appeal, the barrister provided a brief response and stated the options that were generally available. The barrister could not go into specific detail about Mr L’s case with his family member due to data protection laws. However, the evidence showed that Mr L was provided with detailed advice in writing a few days later, and this clearly explained why the barrister considered that an appeal would be unsuccessful.
