When you are facing  trial in any circumstances, you want to believe that the people defending you are up to the job and will do their best on your behalf. In Kristian's case his solicitor was provided by the police federation.

The Police Federation almost exclusively use Russell Jones & Walker as their solicitors of choice. The solicitors then choose your barrister for you. The problem with this system in Manchester and, possibly elsewhere, is that it leads to a form of corruption. The solicitor, Joanne Stephens, who was newly qualified when assigned to Kristian's case, chose a female barrister whom she said was experienced in cases of sexual allegations. What she did not tell Kristian, was that this barrister worked on both defence and prosecution cases. Now, what we have is a solicitor whose company gets a lot of work from the police and a barrister who works, on occasions, for the police. This cosy relationship will be discussed elsewhere.

This article is about the barrister Charlotte Crangle and the appalling defence she gave for Kristian. Not only that, this article is designed to warn anyone who might have her foisted upon them, that she is a liar. Yes that is right she is a liar. At the first meeting that Kristian and David Abbott attended with Crangle, they were impressed to some degree with a woman who appeared to have the right ideas. She said that they would have to engage someone to drive the route that Kristian was alleged to have taken to see if it mattered in the defence. This never happened, There was much more that was said at that meeting that never materialised.

What did Crangle do that was so wrong? In a nutshell she provided absolutely no defence to the charges.  Had Kristian had a decent barrister who wanted to fight his cause, then he would never have been convicted. Now the Bar Standards Council, in a response to a complaint laid against Crangle by the Abbotts, said that the issue of whether or not a defence was good or not was in the eye of the beholder. As there was no evidence to show that the defence was poor then they had to take the word of the barrister against that of the Abbotts. Well, an organisation set up by barristers and operated by barristers would do that wouldn't they? Be that as it may, the one thing that brings into question as to whether or not Crangle provided a good enough defence is whether or not she can be believed. The Abbotts say no she cannot be believed because she is a liar.