Introduction

Television and movies often portray criminal practice as the most glamorous speciality within the legal profession. In fact it is among the least attractive to most new lawyers – probably because defending accused criminals can be seen as repulsive and unremunerative. Yet it is for these very reasons that the criminal defence advocate is usually taken as the paradigmatic example of the reason why adversarial advocacy is necessary and ethically justified. As one senior barrister puts it:

Because the potential sanctions for criminal offences, such as deprivation of liberty, are so serious and the resources and capacity of the state to investigate and prosecute crimes so vast, our system assumes that an accused should always have the opportunity to ‘put the Crown to proof’ of any charges brought against the accused. In other words, the strength of the Crown must be able to be put to the test in the adversary system. This effectively holds the state (including the police and other regulators) accountable by making sure that they have strong enough evidence to justify conviction and imprisonment.