The non-road traffic cases make for even more interesting reading.
http://www.4kbw.co.uk/members/janick-fielding/
Indeed so, but it also seems to suggest that he has also been responsible for the avoidance of at least some gross miscarriages of justice and (if I read it correctly) a lot of his caseload has come through the Legal Aid system.
No doubt he is a superb barrister, accustomed to probing weaknesses and deficiencies in how crimes have been investigated and prosecuted, as is right and proper, but that makes his comment (above) about Ben Pontin even more inexcusable. It can't really have contributed to the outcome - I hope.
Actually I suspect it did, which makes me very very cross.
From the information provided, the judge instructed the jury that they had to decide two things: was the driving careless and did it set in train events that resulted in her death?
They may well have decided that she was careless, but there is a possible break in the proof between that and her death. There seem to be several points here.
First that he braked, apparently causing the crash. The defence was able to either refute or the prosecution was not able to prove that was as a result of the driver's manoeuvre. Then, the girl fell into the path of the car. That would have to be shown as a chain of events that was linked beyond reasonable doubt (this is a criminal prosecution) to the driving. There appears some gaps in evidence as to whether the car hit her.
So yes, I would say that the counsel's speech had an effect on the jury.
