Oh where oh where art thou?

The regular readers of this site, will be aware of the strong feelings that the Abbott family have, about the totally inadequate defence provided for their son Kristian, by the then newly qualified solicitor Joanne Stephens and the barrister Charlotte Crangle, both in the run up to and during their son's trial in 2008.

The following is a letter written by David Abbott to Russell Jones Walker complaining about Joanne Stephens and poor performance in Kristian's defence. RJW's response to that letter can be found here

This is the first response from Nick Holroyd of RJW to David Abbott's letter of complaint and shows quite clearly that complaints are not something they do.

Our Ref: NBH/Abbott/560.7985 10^th December 2008 Your Ref:

Dear Mr Abbott,

RE: Kristian Abbott – Complaint

I refer to your letter of the 13^th November 2008 and as indicated I have considered the contents of your letter and have now had an opportunity to review the file of papers and to speak to Joanne Stephens. I am of course sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with the service provided but I hope to be able to deal with the matters raised individually as follows;

1) Joanne is a solicitor with 2 years post qualification experience and is in my view more than sufficiently qualified to deal with a case of this nature. Since qualification she has represented both police officers and members of the public in serious criminal investigations. Her case work is, where appropriate, overseen by a supervising solicitor. I regard her as an extremely competent solicitor who has always demonstrated considerable care and professionalism in conducting cases on behalf of her clients’. This particular file did not receive direct supervision but examination of it confirms that it has been dealt with to a satisfactory standard. At no time was there a need for her to seek guidance from myself or other more senior supervisors.

2) It is not accepted that the judge’s comments were a criticism of the defence. I understand that he commented on the unusual circumstances of the defence being able to rely upon the prosecutions own evidence in support of its alibi which is of course what happened in this case. I regret that I cannot accept that no defence was put forward. The prosecution evidence supported your sons account namely that he was not the officer involved and evidence was put forward on his behalf that he was engaged in other matters at the material time.

3) I have considered the case papers and I am satisfied that Joanne took all reasonable and necessary steps to pursue the line of inquiry relating to the key fob. It is suggested that she in some way dismissed your concerns about this issue. This is with respect not the case. The matter was raised in Kristian’s Defence Case Statement and pursued vigorously thereafter including the matter being raised before the court on two separate occasions. I have been unable to locate any correspondence or e mail in which Joanne refers to you “banging on” about the key fobs. You make a serious allegation against Joanne that she lied to you. I have found no evidence to support such an allegation. If you have copies of the e mails to which you refer then I should be grateful to see them. Had she used such language the attitude this perhaps reflects is not demonstrated by the considerable tenacity demonstrated by the file.

4) The Log Books were requested by Joanne in correspondence and raised in Kristian’s Defence Case Statement. She does not dispute saying “your parents keep going on about these log books” in an e mail to Kristian. This was not intended in a derogatory way. I have read the correspondence file and it is clear that Joanne responded promptly and thoroughly to all issues raised by you and by Kristian. I have to say that the fact that she engaged directly with you when you and your wife were not the client is a tribute to her professionalism and willingness to engage with you beyond that expected of any solicitor.

5) It is accepted that more could have been done to contact Airwaves directly but you should understand that information could not have been released to RJW by Airwaves even if available without the agreement of the police or a third party summons. The fact is that there was other evidence to support Kristian’s case and it is not accepted that any prejudice was caused to Kristian’s defence. He was of course acquitted of the allegation.

6) It is not accepted that Joanne lied as you allege. She rang Keyways having pursued the matter through the appropriate channels with the police and prosecution and having obtained the information and therefore their agreement.

7) It is quite normal in a case of this nature to seek disclosure of evidence from the CPS and as in this case to seek disclosure by order of the court pursuant to Section 8 of the CPIA. You may not be aware that Joanne made a number of other enquiries including a third party application for the disclosure of A’s Social Services records and two separate experts’ reports.

8) I note your concerns about DS Barnard. From the file I can see that Joanne engaged in correspondence by e mail about this point and her advice has been proper and reasonable. I believe that you did complain about DS Barnard. It is a fact that as a firm we do not become involved in complaints against police because of the potential for conflict with our institutional client but this does not prejudice our ability to examine police officers. Joanne was properly reflecting the position in her e mail but your interpretation of what she said is not accepted.

9) The file demonstrates a considerable volume of work and in particular correspondence with yourself and your wife. It appears that in fact Joanne responded promptly and thoroughly to your enquiries in the main and as I have said beyond what was necessary given that you were not our client. She has gone out of her way to respect your wishes and advise you throughout. I am sorry that you harbour doubts about Joanne’s veracity but I can confirm that there is a letter on our file produced and dated 3^rd January 2008 enclosing the case papers. At no time during the preparations for the case for trial in May was there any indication that Kristian had not received his copy of the papers.

10) I have been unable to find any evidence that Joanne sought to defend DS Barnard and I can see no reason why she should do so.

11) S A was not treated as a “vulnerable witness”. You may with respect have misunderstood the position. I understand that an application was made for special measures but that Ashton did not want special measures i.e. video link or screen to be available. I am told however that it was explained to you by Miss Crangle that for tactical reasons it would not be in Kristian’s interests for the witness to be attacked in an aggressive way. This would be particularly so as it would risk losing the support of the jury who might see the witness as being vulnerable. The judge did not remove any status as you suggest since she did not have such status at any stage. The manner of cross examination was a reasonable and tactical approach. A's character and previously fabricated complaints were put to her and were before the jury. It is a matter of regret that despite this the jury have believed her account.

12) As you will no doubt be aware Kristian instructed us that the semen belonged to him. There was therefore no basis to question the lack of a DNA test. You will appreciate that Kristian’s instructions only changed during the course of the trial. His original explanation was contained in a signed defence case statement which was before the court.

13) The condom wrapper was evidence and was not something which could, with respect, be described as “non evidence” given the nature of the allegation. The danger of having tests done in these circumstances is the potential for getting an answer which we would not want and bearing in mind that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Had any test we may have undertaken proved a link with the same batch as those belonging to A it may have undermined Kristian’s case. The lack of any DNA evidence was included in an agreed Admissions put before the jury and this was a matter which we used in support of your son’s case. This was re emphasised in the defence closing speech rather than only mentioned at this stage as you suggest. The use of agreed admissions is a common procedure in criminal cases.

14) The issues of timing were, I understand, raised before the jury and dealt with by the judge in his summing up. I cannot see that any expert evidence could have contributed to this aspect of the evidence.

15) I have to reject the assertion that Joanne was too junior for this case or that the case could have been dealt with differently had a senior solicitor conducted the defence. The case was conducted with considerable attention to the issues and with professionalism.

16) Contrary to your suggestion that she had made her mind up the evidence contained in the file suggests otherwise. There is substantial evidence of communication with you, your wife and Kristian which goes well beyond that which would normally be expected in a case of this nature funded by the public purse. Joanne was quite correct to state that there was a case to answer. This is something quite different from saying that the case is proved on the evidence. Any objective view of the evidence would, with respect be, that there was sufficient to justify a prosecution. Joanne would have been failing in her duty as a solicitor to suggest or pretend otherwise.

17) I have been unable to find any reference to expressed concerns regarding Kristian’s welfare. If you have such references then no doubt you will let me have them.

18) I am in some difficulty finding any basis for criticism of Joanne in respect of the Gibbons allegation since Kristian was acquitted of the charge. However to respond to your criticism I understand from the file that as soon as Joanne became aware that he had driven the Astra she requested disclosure of the log book and the CCTV. The fact that CCTV had been destroyed cannot be blamed on Joanne and did not prejudice Kristian receiving a fair trial.

19) It is regrettable that Carrie had not refreshed her memory from her statement before giving evidence and I would accept that efforts should have been made to ensure that she had understood her evidence before taking the stand. However the situation was remedied in the course of the trial and Carrie was allowed the opportunity to refresh her memory. It is recognised that the giving of evidence is not a memory test and statements are often referred to. Whilst unsatisfactory I cannot see that this was in any way detrimental to Kristian’s case. Such are the rules of evidence that any witness who is still giving evidence cannot communicate with others involved in the case. I can well imagine how difficult it will have been for Carrie to be on her own during the lunch break.

20) You refer to the fact that certain witnesses were not called. This is because their evidence was not in dispute between the prosecution and defence. In such circumstances it is common for the evidence to be agreed and for witnesses not to be called to give live evidence. This is what happened in this case.

21) I understand that Miss Crangle stated that there were no obvious grounds for appeal. It is difficult to disagree with this assessment however one would wish to find grounds in these circumstances. I strongly reject any suggestion that conviction has arisen from incompetence in the preparation of Kristian’s defence.

22) I regret to say that my clear understanding is that both Miss Crangle and Joanne were in court at the time that Kristian was asked to sign the register. Neither of them was asked for advice and they did not leave together. Perhaps understandably you were upset by the outcome but I should say that I was made aware of your hostility toward Joanne during the course of the trial. Such was the level of abuse from you towards Joanne and counsel that they felt unable to approach and advise Kristian and felt it was better to leave you and your family alone. It will no doubt be on the record that the trial judge thanked both the defence and prosecution for the presentation of the case. Mr Millington who attended on the final day was called into court for the judge to express his comments. Joanne did not attend on the final day because she had been so distressed by your attitude. She felt abused and threatened by you.

In response to your final questions and having examined many similar cases in the past I am satisfied that Joanne was of sufficient experience and competence. This was not a complex case.

The file demonstrates clearly her commitment to Kristian and I cannot see any evidence that he did not have an adequate defence.

Joanne has acted with the utmost professionalism under difficult and, at the end, hostile circumstances.

I have no reason to think that Joanne was other than truthful and honest in her dealings with you and your family and it is very regrettable that you should think otherwise.

I wish Kristian well with his appeal and I expect that you will wish to have the matter considered by our professional body as outlined to Kristian in correspondence and repeated to you by e mail. I have copied this letter to my senior partner John Webber. I regret that this response has taken longer than hoped for but it has been necessary to fully examine the papers in the case in some detail.

Yours sincerely

Nick Holroyd