The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister Plot Summary

Introduction

The courtroom falls silent as the judge delivers the verdict. "Not guilty," he pronounces, and a wave of relief washes over the defendant's face. After eighteen months on remand, losing his job, his home, and watching his marriage crumble, he is finally free to go. But as he steps outside the courthouse, the harsh reality sets in: there will be no compensation for his lost time, no assistance in rebuilding his shattered life, not even an apology from the system that wrongfully imprisoned him. This is the face of modern justice—a system that can destroy lives with impunity and walk away without consequence. Our criminal justice system is failing. Not just in isolated, headline-grabbing cases, but systematically, daily, and with devastating human consequences. Through intimate portraits of those caught in its gears—from innocent defendants bankrupted by legal fees to victims retraumatized by insensitive procedures, from overworked prosecutors to underpaid defense lawyers—this book exposes the true cost of a broken system. You'll discover how justice has become a luxury good available primarily to the wealthy, how political rhetoric about being "tough on crime" masks the dismantling of vital legal protections, and most importantly, why this matters to every citizen, not just those unlucky enough to be accused of crimes they didn't commit.

Chapter 1: The Wild West of Magistrates' Courts: Justice by Lottery

Kyle slumped in the waiting area of the magistrates' court, nervously tapping his worn rubber soles against the chair in front. At nineteen, he was already a regular here, having graduated from the Youth Court just a year earlier. Today, found in the passenger seat of a stolen VW Golf barely a month after receiving a community order for theft, he was prepared for the prison sentence looming over him. He just wanted to get it over with, to check out of this human zoo and join his mates inside. When his solicitor Rachael arrived, Kyle confirmed his guilty plea, and they entered the courtroom together. The magistrates, however, had other ideas. "Listen here," the chair addressed Kyle directly, "we don't want to lock you up. You're a young lad with a bad past, but we've read your probation reports, and we think you've got prospects." For four hours, the bench tried to persuade Kyle to continue with his community order, even bringing in his probation officer and eventually his mother. "We believe in you," they evangelized. Remarkably, Kyle's resolve finally cracked. "I do want help," he sobbed. "I don't want to spend my life in and out of prison." The bench exchanged satisfied smiles with each other, with Kyle, with his mother, with the probation officer. "We have to formally 'retire' to consider our decision," the chair winked at Kyle with a grandfatherly twinkle, "and we'll be back in a moment." What happened in that retiring room remains a mystery, but they returned stony-faced and sentenced Kyle to nine weeks in prison. This incomprehensible decision exemplifies the unpredictable nature of magistrates' courts, where 94 percent of all criminal cases are resolved. Unlike Crown Courts with professional judges, magistrates' courts are presided over by lay volunteers with minimal legal training but enormous power—they can determine both law and fact, and send citizens to prison for up to a year. The demographic of most magistrates is homogeneous; society's lost boys and girls like Kyle face judgment from benches that rarely reflect their backgrounds or experiences. The quality of justice in these courts is further compromised by statistical bias toward conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service secures convictions in 64 percent of magistrates' court trials, compared to just 52 percent in Crown Court trials—a disparity of nearly fourteen percentage points. You have a 25 percent better chance of being acquitted in the Crown Court for the same offense. This pro-prosecution attitude persists from the days when magistrates' courts were formally called "police courts" until 1949, and even now, you'll hear old-school magistrates occasionally refer to "our officer" or "our prosecutor." What we have is a system designed to deliver affordable, speedy justice for high-volume, less serious crime. But in practice, it delivers a sausage-factory paradigm where "that'll do" complacency pervades 94 percent of criminal cases. And with mission creep extending magistrates' powers and jurisdiction, this hangover of thirteenth-century parochial peace-keeping is being re-engineered as our turbocharged vehicle of justice for the new millennium, with devastating consequences for those caught in its machinery.

Chapter 2: The Innocence Tax: Paying the Price for Being Not Guilty

Sarah clutched the letter from her solicitor with trembling hands. The final bill for her legal defense came to £86,000—money she and her husband had scraped together by remortgaging their modest home and emptying their savings. After eighteen months of hell, the jury had found her not guilty of the fraud charges brought against her small accounting practice. But her relief was short-lived. Despite her acquittal, the government would reimburse only £27,500 of her legal costs—less than a third of what she'd spent proving her innocence. "But I was innocent," she kept repeating to her solicitor. "Shouldn't the state pay when they wrongly prosecute someone?" The solicitor's response was grim: "That's what everyone thinks, but it's not how the system works anymore. You've been hit by what we call the Innocence Tax." This cruel reality emerged from reforms quietly introduced in 2012 and 2014. Before these changes, acquitted defendants could recover reasonable legal costs from central funds. Now, even if proven innocent, middle-income defendants face financial ruin. They're too "wealthy" for legal aid but too poor to comfortably afford private representation. When acquitted, they can only claim back costs at legal aid rates—often just 10-20% of what they actually paid. The government justified these reforms with persistent myths about legal aid. Ministers repeatedly claimed Britain had "the most expensive legal aid system in the world"—a demonstrably false statement. When comparing total criminal justice spending as a percentage of GDP, the UK sits precisely at the European average of 0.33%. What's more, legal aid spending had already been falling for years before these cuts were implemented. The Innocence Tax creates an impossible choice for middle-income families between their financial security and their liberty. Some will be compelled to gamble on the latter, representing themselves in court against professional prosecutors—a contest as fair as a Sunday league footballer facing Lionel Messi. Others will plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit, accepting a criminal record as the lesser evil compared to financial devastation. As one defendant told me: "I can't afford justice. I'll just have to take the punishment." The consequences are threefold: the quality of justice will fall; more innocent people will be financially ruined; and more innocent people, forced to self-represent, will be wrongfully convicted. There is no pretense that this improves the standard of justice; to the contrary, its diminution is tacitly accepted as a price worth paying for knocking a few million off the legal aid bill. In a civilized society, no innocent person should face financial ruin for defending themselves against the state's mistaken accusations.

Chapter 3: Defenceless: When Legal Representation Becomes a Luxury

I first met Darius in the cells beneath the Crown Court. The brief for his preliminary hearing had been hurled at me the previous evening—an added bonus to my growing collection of "returns" from senior members of chambers. It was alarmingly lightweight, containing only the police summary and none of the usual instructions from the solicitors. What the brief didn't tell me was that Darius had severe learning difficulties. That he was the abused product of a drinker mother and a heroin-addicted father. That he had received no formal education and was barely able to communicate. That his was a world of perpetual silence and frustration, governed by a host of psychological disorders that had culminated in a procession of court appearances for petty offending. And that, as his condition deteriorated, he had spent his nineteenth birthday in a secure unit, having been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The clue to this informational void lay in the name of the solicitor typed on the backsheet: Keres & Co. I use the term "solicitor" loosely, because proper criminal solicitors are nothing like the amoral charlatans that Keres represented. Their business model relied not on quality of service, but on "fixers"—unqualified individuals with connections to the criminal community who would tout for business using material inducements or false promises. Once the client was snared and the legal aid certificate transferred, Keres' work on the case ended. They had done nothing to help Darius. They hadn't visited him in prison, hadn't tried to secure him bail, hadn't spoken to the CPS about the circumstances, hadn't obtained his medical records, hadn't arranged an intermediary to help him communicate. They had just left this vulnerable young man to rot in his world of perpetual silence. Darius had been charged with robbery after an argument with his father where he pushed him onto a sofa and took five pounds from his wallet. It was plainly a case that should never have been prosecuted, but Keres had made no effort to persuade the CPS of this. After my intervention and two adjournments, the proceedings were eventually discontinued, but not before Darius had served close to two months in custody in conditions of the utmost inhumanity—deprived of contact, medication, and information—as a direct consequence of the professional negligence of his solicitors. While Keres & Co. represent the tiny minority of publicly funded defense solicitors, the very real risk is that increasing workloads and decreasing fees will drive the good defense solicitors to extinction. Criminal legal aid has been cut to the bone. In the magistrates' court, a solicitor might be paid between £650 and £720 for a case requiring about 38 hours of work—between £17.10 and £18.95 an hour gross. In the Crown Court, it's even lower: a fixed fee of £352.72 for the same case, giving a gross hourly rate of £9.28. The London living wage is £9.75 an hour. Unless they can afford to pay for private legal representation, those accused of crimes who depend on legal aid will increasingly find themselves at the mercy of the system's worst elements—or worse, facing the state's prosecutorial might entirely alone.

Chapter 4: Truth vs Justice: The Adversarial System's Moral Dilemma

The courtroom fell silent as I rose to cross-examine Mysha, the eldest daughter of my client Jay, who stood accused of repeatedly raping his children from their school age to adulthood. Armed with a meticulously prepared schedule of inconsistencies I'd extracted from thousands of pages of social services records, I began systematically dismantling her credibility. Every childhood lie, every teenage rebellion, every psychiatric episode was weaponized to suggest she was fabricating these horrific allegations against her father. As Mysha broke down on the witness stand, I felt a creeping unease. Her raw distress seemed genuine, her account consistent in its core despite minor discrepancies. Yet my professional duty was clear: to test her evidence with every tool at my disposal, regardless of my personal feelings. When the jury returned with their "not guilty" verdict after seventeen counts, my senior colleague George turned to me outside court and whispered, "He did it, didn't he?" I nodded silently. "Those poor fucking girls," he muttered. This case exemplifies the moral ambiguity at the heart of our adversarial justice system. Unlike the inquisitorial systems of continental Europe, where judges actively investigate to uncover truth, our system pits two opposing sides against each other in verbal combat. The prosecution builds its case; the defense tears it down. The assumption is that truth will emerge from this clash of narratives. But does it? The adversarial dynamic encourages distortion and suppression of evidence. Defense lawyers are duty-bound to exploit every weakness in the prosecution case, even if they believe their client is guilty. Prosecution witnesses face grueling cross-examination designed not to illuminate truth but to discredit them. Evidence that might help jurors understand what really happened is often excluded through technical legal rules. In sex cases particularly, the system can be brutally retraumatizing for genuine victims. Complainants are subjected to intimate questioning about their sexual history, mental health, and personal credibility. Their most painful experiences are dissected in public, their reactions scrutinized for signs of inconsistency. Many describe the trial as worse than the original assault. Yet alternatives present their own problems. Inquisitorial systems, where the state controls investigation, presentation of evidence, and judgment, assume the state is competent to find truth and that its neutrality is unimpeachable—assumptions history has repeatedly proven false. Perhaps the fundamental issue is that we expect too much from criminal trials. We want them to deliver objective truth, when in reality they can only provide a process-based approximation of justice. The presumption of innocence and burden of proof aren't designed to uncover truth; they're designed to protect individuals from the overwhelming power of the state. When we demand certainty from an inherently uncertain process, we set ourselves up for disappointment. The system's imperfections don't mean it should be abandoned, but rather that we must acknowledge its limitations and work within them to minimize harm to all involved.

Chapter 5: Prosecuting on the Cheap: Why the Guilty Walk Free

Amy Jackson was fourteen years old when she first met Rob McCulloch, a brooding twenty-something fresh out of prison, at the bus stop behind her care home. She was fifteen when she moved into his squat; a few months older when Rob, to "break her in" on her sweet sixteenth, first injected her with heroin. She was sixteen years and one day old when he first pinned her against the sofa and tore clumps of hair from her scalp—the penalty for her reluctance to have sex with Rob's dealer as part-payment for her birthday present. By the time she was twenty-two, Amy had endured years of brutal violence. Then Rob really lost his temper. A careless retort heralded a reign of punches to her mouth that continued for whole minutes, until she couldn't see or swallow for the blood. Dragged by her hair out of the house and tossed into the front garden, she could just make out the blurry figure of Rob taking a run up towards her head, like taking a penalty kick. And then everything went black. The intervention of a passing taxi driver saved her from what might have followed. When police asked if she wanted to tell them what had happened, Amy nodded and recounted her entire history with Rob. He was arrested, interviewed, and responded "No comment" to every question. Rob was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, and I was instructed to prosecute the trial. There was just one problem: the evidence was missing. The brief I received contained only the police summary of the allegations. The actual witness statement from Amy and her medical records were nowhere to be found. It became apparent that the evidence had simply gone. It had never been served on the defense. It had never even reached the Crown Prosecution Service. The police had apparently never taken a formal statement from Amy, and the pocket notebook in which her first account had been recorded had gone missing. Despite this, the case should have been salvageable. All the police needed to do was allocate an officer to take a statement from Amy and obtain her medical records. But despite multiple court hearings and extensions of time granted by increasingly exasperated judges, this was never done. At the final hearing, with no evidence produced, the judge had no choice but to dismiss the charges. Rob McCulloch was free to go. This case exemplifies how frequently and flagrantly the contract between state and citizen is breached when it comes to prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service has lost almost a third of its workforce over the last eight years. One quarter of prosecutors—many of them senior and experienced—have been sacrificed through voluntary redundancy schemes in an aim to meet expenditure cuts of 27 percent imposed since 2009–10. This was far from an organization that ran like clockwork prior to 2010, nor some flabby public body from which giant globules of fat could easily be liposuctioned by HM Treasury. The consequences are devastating. Evidence is not served, disclosure is not made, court deadlines are repeatedly missed, cases arrive underprepared, and millions of pounds of public money are wasted. And, as a consequence, every single day, provably guilty people walk free. When that guilty person is someone like Rob McCulloch, the human cost is incalculable. I don't know what happened to Amy. I hope that the women's refuge helped resettle her somewhere far away. And I hope that someone took the time to apologize. Because if Amy had cultural capital—if she had a good support network and family and friends and an education and wasn't hooked on heroin—she would have demanded answers, instead of settling, as I fear she may have, for the self-told assurance that this is just how the state treats people like her.

Chapter 6: The Appeal Paradox: Not Guilty But Not Innocent Enough

Victor Nealon watched over a video link from HMP Wakefield as the Court of Appeal considered his final appeal against conviction. Seventeen years earlier, in January 1997, he had been convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case had relied on eyewitness identification, though the evidence was weak—only one witness had picked him out, and Nealon bore little resemblance to the descriptions given. He had immediately offered to undergo DNA testing, but none was conducted. Now, after 6,169 nights in prison, DNA testing had finally been performed on the victim's clothing. The results were unequivocal: saliva found on the victim's blouse and bra cups, where her attacker had groped her, did not belong to Victor Nealon. Every other potential innocent source had been eliminated. The Court of Appeal took little time to reach its decision: the conviction was "unsafe" and would be quashed. That evening, Nealon was released from prison and dumped at a railway station with £46 in his pocket—the standard discharge grant. No accommodation, no support services, no apology. Seventeen years of his life had been stolen, but the system's final insult was yet to come. When he applied for compensation, his claim was rejected. Under reforms introduced in 2014, a "miscarriage of justice" now only exists if new evidence proves "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person did not commit the offense—an almost impossible standard to meet. This perverse definition creates a legal limbo for the wrongfully convicted. They are not guilty in the eyes of the law, but not "innocent enough" to deserve compensation. The state acknowledges its error by quashing their conviction but refuses to make amends for the devastation caused. As Lord Bingham noted in 1994, such people are "entitled to be treated, for all purposes, as if they had never been convicted," yet the compensation scheme denies them this basic dignity. The rarity of successful appeals makes this injustice even more acute. Between 2015 and 2016, only 94 appellants had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal—about 6.6% of applications. When set against approximately 70,000 Crown Court convictions annually, the "quashing rate" is a mere 0.13%. While this could suggest our trial system reliably produces safe convictions, history tells a different story. The Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and Cardiff Three all had their initial appeals dismissed, with judges declaring there were "no grounds whatever" to overturn their convictions. Years or decades later, their innocence was finally acknowledged. Even when convictions are quashed, the public rarely hears about it. While the Crown Prosecution Service holds press conferences to announce charges in high-profile cases, no corresponding acknowledgment comes when the system fails. Of the 625 unsafe convictions quashed between 2011 and 2016, only a handful received media attention. The government proudly boasts when sentences are increased under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme but remains silent about the far greater number reduced as excessive or unlawful. This asymmetry reflects deeper cultural attitudes—we prefer to believe that everyone behind bars deserves to be there, rather than confronting the possibility that innocent people are suffering unjustly at the state's hands.

Chapter 7: The Courage to Reform: Rebuilding Justice from the Ground Up

Judge Patricia Lynch QC had reached her limit. After sentencing a defendant to eighteen months for racist abuse, he called her "a bit of a cunt." Without missing a beat, she replied, "You are a bit of a cunt yourself." The courtroom froze in shock before erupting in nervous laughter. This unorthodox exchange captured something essential about our justice system: beneath the solemn ceremony lies confusion, inconsistency, and a fundamental dishonesty about what we're trying to achieve. The sentencing framework itself is bewilderingly complex. Sentencing law is scattered across over 1,300 pages of legislation, with hundreds more pages of guidelines and thousands of appellate judgments. Even judges struggle to navigate this labyrinth. In 2010, High Court Justice Mitting lamented: "It has taken from twelve noon until twelve minutes to five to explain the relevant statutory provisions to me, a professional judge... It is simply unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law for it to be well-nigh impossible to discern from statutory provisions what a sentence means in practice." Behind this chaos lies a deeper problem: we can't decide what sentencing is for. The law identifies five purposes—punishment, crime reduction, rehabilitation, public protection, and reparation—but provides no guidance on how to balance these competing aims. Should we prioritize retribution for a drug-addicted shoplifter, or treatment for their addiction? Should we imprison a mentally ill offender who poses no danger, simply because their crime deserves punishment? Our cultural default has become prison. Since 1990, England's prison population has soared by 90%, despite falling crime rates. We imprison people at nearly twice the rate of Germany and three times that of Sweden. Yet reoffending rates remain stubbornly high—46% of prisoners reoffend within a year of release, rising to 60% for short sentences. Meanwhile, prison conditions have deteriorated catastrophically. Overcrowding, understaffing, violence, self-harm, and suicide have reached record levels. The ultimate con is that we've created a system that satisfies no one. Victims feel justice is denied by seemingly lenient sentences. The public believes dangerous criminals roam free. Taxpayers fund an expensive system that fails to rehabilitate. And politicians perpetuate the cycle by promising ever-tougher sentences without addressing the fundamental dishonesty at the system's core. Reform requires courage—the courage to admit that our current approach isn't working, and the courage to try something different. Countries like Norway, with its focus on rehabilitation and humane conditions, achieve reoffending rates of just 20%. Germany's emphasis on keeping people out of prison wherever possible has not led to crime waves but to safer communities. These alternatives aren't soft on crime; they're smart on crime. They recognize that the best way to protect the public is not to warehouse offenders in criminogenic environments but to address the underlying causes of their behavior. A more honest approach would acknowledge that prison should be reserved for those who pose genuine danger, that rehabilitation requires investment not punishment, and that the public deserves transparency about what sentences actually mean. Until then, we'll continue paying the price for this collective self-deception—in money, in lives, and in justice denied.

Summary

Justice is failing us all. From magistrates' courts where outcomes depend more on luck than law, to a system that financially punishes the innocent, from prosecutors so under-resourced they drop winnable cases, to an appeals process that refuses to properly compensate victims of miscarriages of justice—our legal system is crumbling under the weight of political neglect and public indifference. This isn't just a problem for "criminals" or "victims"; it's a fundamental threat to the rule of law that protects every citizen. Demand better from your elected representatives. When politicians promise to be "tough on crime," ask what they're doing to ensure the system actually delivers justice, not just convictions. Support organizations fighting for legal aid and fair trials. Remember that a justice system is judged not by how it treats the powerful and popular, but by how it protects the vulnerable and despised. Most importantly, recognize that criminal justice isn't something that happens to "other people"—it's a system we all rely on, and one that any of us might one day need to trust with our freedom, our reputation, and our future.

About Author

Loading...

The Secret Barrister

The author, writing under the pseudonym of The Secret Barrister, is a junior barrister practising criminal law before the courts of England and Wales. The Secret Barrister is also a blogger who in 2016 and 2017 was named Independent Blogger of the Year at the Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards. As of the book's publication date in March 2018 the author had a substantial following on Twitter of nearly 88,000.

Read more

Related Books by The Secret Barrister

Loading...

Fake Law

The Secret Barrister

The Truth About Justice in an Age of Lies

★★★★☆4.2