Judicial perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy: report of research commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board
Report presents findings of 50 qualitative interviews with Circuit and High Court Judges in England and Wales about their perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy in the Crown Court. The study aimed to understand the views of the judiciary on the quality of criminal advocacy; establish how good/competent advocacy was defined; and address perceptions and any issues of regulatory concern that may require further investigation. Findings highlighted some consensus about qualities required of good advocacy - excellent communication, persuasiveness, succinctness, and courtesy, alongside good legal knowledge. A range of concerns were also highlighted, including inexperienced advocates, poor case preparation and unfocussed questioning of witnesses. Further, interviewees identified a number of systemic barriers to good advocacy such as declining levels of remuneration in criminal advocacy, and associated low levels of morale within the profession
