I'm not convinced by the excuse that it was Bellfield who gave the instructions, so that lets off the defence team and the Judge. The Judge praised the defence barrister for his skill yet condemned the Defendant for the cruel nature of "his" instructions as to how his case was fought. If the Judge really believed the line of questioning was cruel to the Dowlers, then he should not have allowed that line of questioning. Again, if Bellfield would not even stand up in court and deny doing anything to the victim, why worry about the nicities of allowing his defence team to try the most unpleasent means possible to attack the memory of the victim?

I'm pretty suspicious about restricting the right of cross-examination, as it can obviously create a danger of allowing totally false evidence to go unchallenged.

But in this case, it is hard to see how making vague smears against the parents which imply they were the real killers can possibly be justified where: 1) there is prima facie evidence that Bellfield was the killer, 2) there is no prima facie evidence against the parents whatsoever, and 3) the defence barrister knows this.

Paula - exactly. It appears cynical for a defence team advise their client that this type of questioning is an option, when all it is doing is just spinning out the case for a couple more weeks to the benefit of no-one. This is one situation which unfortunately will reinforce arguemnts for cuts to legal aid

I should have added my Brother was abducted 30 years ago never seen since Craig I watched my parents go through hell people like Bellfield coming before the victims when your family suffers your soon change your mind I can personally relate to the Dowlers.

Kate states the text book legal position but that leaves out the practical reality that if a Defence Team are so scared of putting the Defendant on the stand, then they have no case. Does anyone know of any English case where a Defendant on a murder charge has been found not guilty where s/he has not given evidence and the only line of attack is the victims family? Thought not, and a QC led defence team would know this too. The ONLY defence option? No, the only defence option if you have guaranteed fees courtasy of the taxpayer.

At least the whole matter is now over. No legal aid manager, with a limited legal aid budget, could possibly agree to fund any type of appeal by Bellfield, could they?

That is the problem with the adversarial system.
The witnesses are at the mercy of the whores of justice (barristers).

The judge in this trial has shown himself to be incompetent.

What has the father's sexual inclinations got to do with the guy being up for murder. The father wasn't on trial.

I imagine there have been cases in which this line of questioning has led to a verdict of not guilty. This would tend to indicate that, in principle, in an adversarial system, by and large, it's legitimate. Beyond that it's a matter of degree.

1. The parents were upset - their daughter had been murdered - of course they are upset.

2. (as above) Questions about the legitimacy of the questioning are being raised after conviction, *in hindsight* - what if their had been an acquittal?

3. We weren't there. We don't know the context.

4. Much of what has been said is legitimate - the victims and witnesses (interesting they are viewed together in this way) advocate spoke a lot of sense: the courts treat victims and witnesses appallingly. I'm just not sure that was fully established in this case

5. A lot of the furore comes from the accusation = guilt line of thinking which has established a strong foothold in the country, including amongst MPs and even ministers, at the moment. This lynching mentality is counterproductive.

6. Back to 1 again...On one side the family of a murdered child, on the other side a person accused of murder. It's difficult to see how to conduct a trial in these circumstances without causing distress.

Having said all the above I would like to emphasise that Louise Casey, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, spoke very strongly on the need for reform eg parents having to sit close to accused and later convicted defendants who were "laughing and joking" as the trail was conducted. There were many many other examples.

(Victims *and* Witnesses - isn't it bizarre that they are viewed together?)

Ann - I can't think or know of any case where the Defendant, having chosen not to take the stand and protest his innocence, has been found not guilty, after the victim's family have had the memory of their relation damned by cross examination. Fair enough for police witnesses to be given a good grilling, that's what they are paid for. In this case there was no need for it.

From a lawyer's perspective Jeffrey Samuels' cross examination of the witnesses was third-rate and also improper. None of his insinuations concerning the bereaved family's private lives had any relevance whatsoever to the evidence supporting the case against Bellfield. Bellfield offered no evidence, so there was nothing in support of which such insinuations could properly have been made. The trial judge clearly failed to exercise proper control over the conduct of this trial. Sadly, this is all symptomatic of falling standards in the legal profession.

In the particular circumstances of this case, who, in practice, would have had the final say over the prosecution going ahead ? What would have happened if the Dowlers showed a reluctance to testify ?

I wonder whether the CPS would have pursued the case, and forced the issue, possibly even summonsing the Dowlers.

If any person was told by the authrorities that there was sufficient evidence to bring the prosecution but that the accused was already serving one, or more, whole-life sentences, the question must surely arise as to whether there is anything, or anything of sufficient value, to be gained by pursuing the prosecution.

On the assumption that the Dowlers were properly advised, I am wondering whether it might, in essence, have been their call ultimately to proceed with the prosecution ?

Unfortunately a circular argument is developing here.

Where a person's guilt or innocence is what is in dispute, it's illegitimate to reason that whether they are guilty or not depends on the seriousness of the allegation.

Isn't one of the issues here that the questioning about very sensitive private matters was done in open court and available for all to know? If you disregard the fact that Bellfield refused to give evidence and accept the fact that it might have been a valid line of questioning, couldn't the judge decide to hold reporting rights on that specific topic at least until the end of the trial?

All I can say is that reading the Guardian report made me cry but if I were on trial, I would want my Barrister to go as far as he thinks is necessary for my acquittal.

I fail to see how his getting Milly's mother to admit that she had commented negatively on Milly's looks was in any way relevant to the proceedings either and in my opinion contravened the code of conduct.

The Dowlers should make a formal complaint about him and his conduct. Unless he is legally challenged then this kind of unacceptable questioning and laying bare of unrelated matters will continue

Perhaps the judge took the view that the only way to ensure that Levi Bellfield is never released was to allow his barrister free rein. there is now absolutely no chance of an appeal based on the judge's direction of his defence. In addition, the level to which the defence felt obliged to stoop only further re-inforces what an odious individual Bellfield undoubtedly is. By the way I find it hugely ironic that Law insiders are queuing up to justify the QC's tactics as in effect him following orders and only doing his job. I seem to remember this argument being held to be in disrepute and considered to be contemptible and no defence in the eyes of the law. What is reasonable and what is understandable seems to have been conflated in this instance.

Adversarial questioning is the heart of the legal process. A barrister has a right and a duty to pursue all lines of questioning and act in the best interests of their client.
But that tactic can backfire. In theory Jurors are supposed to convict on the evidence presented. In practise their decision making will be influenced by their prejudices, life experiences and their impressions of the prosecution and defence. If a defence barrister appears to be trying a dirty tricks campaign to get their client off on a technicality, that might well leave a negative impression the jury and make them *more* likely to convict. Whether that was the case with Bellfield remains to be seen.

What makes this a talking point is that the Defence were allowed to follow this line of questioning knowing full well their client would not be given evidence. The very fact he chose not to give evidence should have caused the Judge to warn the defence team about their choice of tactics.

There is no easy answer here. A victim or their relative being put through any further suffering is of course terrible and upsetting. However, ensuring a fair trial requires that the strongest possible case be made for the defence. On balance I think that in the vast majority of cases a fair trial must trump privacy and compassionate concerns for witnesses where there is a relevant and genuine line of questioning to be pursued in defence of the accused.

Another good blog by DAG highlighting why this is such a fiendishly difficult area. Many are rushing to judgment on the basis of a short media summary of the issues in the case or, worse still, a handful of tweets. Unnecessary cross-examination should, of course, be promptly cut short. Without knowing all of the evidence/facts and having not been in Court I don't see how it is possible to offer a fully informed view on the actions of Judge/Counsel.
In any event, it is remarkable that at the same time that the media works itself up into a state of indignation about the cross-examination, it doesn't pause to question its own decision to publish/broadcast such material to the world.

It's not the Dowlers call. The CPS make the decision on the basis of 2 tests. First is the evidential test -basically is their evidence to put before a court so that there is a reasonable prospect of oniction. Second is the public interest test - whether the prosecution of the offender is in the public interest. The Dowlers could have refused to come to come to give evidence and written to the CPS saying they no longer supported the prosecution of the case but the CPS could then have gone to court and asked the judge for a witness summons and even a witness warrant (ie bringing the witness in custody). No victims of crime have the right in the UK'to press charges' (the US TV cliche).

I have read most of the posts on the website with interest. From my perspective, as a barrister of 9 years call, I can say that I have a huge amount of sympathy with the Dowler family and the ordeal through which Mr Dowler and Mrs Dowler had to go when giving evidence and for the rest of the family when watching the trial. I like you all have only a limited understanding of the trial because I was not in court. However it seems to me that the Crown’s case, which was that Bellfield lived 30 yards from where Milly was last seen, his car was seen around the time of her disappearance and his previous convictions for murder, did have a significant missing element : actual evidence that Mr Bellfield abducted and killed Milly. I do not doubt that the verdict of the jury was correct but it is in that context that Jeffrey Samuels QC put the instructions he had been given by his client (presumably that he was not guilty and that Milly must have disappeared for another reason). What had been disclosed to the defence by the Crown (quite properly) was evidence of Milly’s unhappiness with her father, her unhappiness (the letters she wrote to her parents) with herself (sadly not uncommon in young teenage girls) and Mr Dowler lies to the police (perfectly understandable in the circumstances because of what they related to) which ‘supported’ Mr Bellfield’s instructions. I say ‘supported’ because clearly the jury did not believe any of this. There are a few misconceptions in some of the posts too. These include the idea that there is a burden on the defendant to produce evidence of an alternative scenario of Milly’s demise. There is no burden on the defendant in an evidential sense. The Crown bring the case, with all the might of the police and CPS behind then. The defence are perfectly entitled to put the Crown to proof and you might be surprised the number of times little or no cross-examination takes place from defence counsel and the judge either withdraws the case from the jury for lack of a case to answer or the defendant chooses not to give evidence because there is no case for him to answer and the jury acquit him because they agree. One has to distinguish between morality/truth and our criminal justice system. That may sound flippant but our adversarial system is related to proof to a particular standard (‘satisfied so that you are sure/beyond reasonable doubt’) as opposed to trying to work out what truly happened in every particular alleged crime. The reason for that is that the latter is simply impossible. If that were the case then I doubt whether Bellfield could be convicted because no one saw him commit the crime.
I am still disturbed that so many people believe that barristers and solicitors who undertake publicly funded work (‘legal aid’) think that we are paid a lot. We are not. From 1995 to 2006 barristers’s pay received from doing criminal trials fell by over 20% because it was not linked to inflation. After being restored in 2006 to what it should have been (ie to reflect inflation from 1995-2006) it has in the last 2 years been slashed again by 13%. We get paid on a case by case basis. We have to sort our own pensions. We lose about a 33% of our income in paying rent to our chambers, clerk fees and other disbursements related to running our practices. We also are not allowed to strike as a profession – we could do so individually but if we don’t work we don’t earn. It is a wonder why we even bother doing the job at all because we get abuse from everyone (‘fat cat’ ‘legal whores’ etc) and the government (no matter what party) tell lies about the cost of legal aid – we do not have the most expensive system in Europe – please read the Thunderer column in The Times written by Des Hudson in the past 10 days. We are not well paid and never paid on time – I have gone 6 months before without being paid – hard when you have a mortgage and family to support. The only answer is that we enjoy what we do and believe that we are contributing to society. I know that most of the posters will see each year the list of top legal aid earners and it can seem that there are fat cats out there. However even if that is so they are a tiny minority. Remember that a third of it will be lost to chambers/clerks fees, a third will go to the tax man and almost certainly the work will have taken more than a year to complete. Say that figure is £300,000. £100, 000 to clerks/chambers which itself can be offset against income. So £200,000 falls to be taxed at about 33% or about £66,000. That leaves the barrister with £144,000 which will be for work undertaken over 2 years. So actually it is equal to about £72,000 a year after tax a year (make your own deductions for mortgage, pension, living costs...). And these are the ‘fat cats’. Most legal aid practitioners earn less than £60,000 and if you apply the arithmetic I have done that amounts to about £27,000 a year. My wife thinks what I do is an expensive hobby which we really can’t afford longer not least because of the stress of worrying about getting paid and getting paid full stop.

David: "... when all it is doing is just spinning out the case for a couple more weeks to the benefit of no-one."

Oh, not to the benefit of no-one, at all. Barristers and court staff have to eat, I suppose..

DAG: I've read elsewhere that "Bellfield refused to appear at court for sentencing".

Do you know why this is an option for the defendent? I would have thought attendance to be mandatory.

JuliaM- I wasn't going to go there but now you mention it...they will not be on a standard legal aid hourly rate.