My attention has been drawn to the fact that on August 1 The Times reported ('109 days in preventive custody') that a lawyer "vociferously" claimed "lack of experience" by lawyers working in my office. I intended to ignore the noise because I seem to recall that a connection has been made between most sound and empty vessels.

But the same lawyer appears to have been at it again on the occasion reported in The Sunday Times on September 21. This time he presumed to teach my office how to do its job.

May I kindly draw the attention of your readers to the fact that sometimes intelligence is inversely proportional to experience and prolixity. It appears that the lawyer in question considers himself to be a lawyer of much experience. Moreover, my office does not need lessons from him. It is aware of its obligations towards the accused but it is also aware of its obligations towards the community.

It appears that some lawyers need to be more aware of their ethical obligations towards other lawyers. They also seem to require some lessons on the different roles of the court and that of the Attorney-General in bail proceedings.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.