The case for the defence of Russell Brand’s barrister

Criminal defence barristers should not be the target of public condemnation just for doing their job diligently, even when representing high-profile clients like Russell Brand, argues Luke Gittos. Last week, Brand was convicted of rape and three sexual assaults, and sentenced to ten years and six months in prison. During the trial, Brand's barrister, Ian Winter KC, argued that Brand's behaviour was not a continuous course of conduct, and the judge challenged this assertion.

Winter faced backlash for confronting a journalist outside court, and has been accused of abusing the legal process. However, Gittos believes these criticisms are unfounded. The abuse-of-process application was a valid question to raise, considering the extensive publicity Brand faced prior to the trial. Winter's aggressive questioning of witnesses was necessary to challenge the credibility of the complainants, as he did not shy away from calling them liars.

Although his tactics were harsh, critics must consider the formidable case the prosecution presented. Winter was obligated to make the prosecution prove their case, and the jury ultimately convicted Brand after hearing this defense. The focus should not be on vilifying barristers for doing their jobs, but rather on ensuring that justice is served through fair trials.