Interview with John Ryder from The Trial

13 March 2017

What is the fundamental job of the defence barrister?

As a bald statement, to secure an acquittal within the confines of the law and ethics, although really it’s to ensure that justice is done. We’re not concerned with the morality of the position. If we were, it would be a very dangerous state of affairs. You’d then end up with categories of individuals who would find it extremely difficult to enlist representation, and those categories might change from time to time depending on society’s attitudes. One can envisage, many decades ago, thankfully, that it may very well have been very difficult for homosexuals to find representation. There may well be a natural resistance among some people in society to informed, articulate, expensive representation for some categories of people – terrorists, for example. That changes from time to time, and those changes demonstrate that morality should never intrude into what we do.

How much convincing did it take for you to get involved?
I had reservations, because having a permanent record of your failings and your essential incapacity is extremely worrying! We all make mistakes, and I doubtless make them in every trial, but at least the moment passes. I was genuinely impressed by the production team. It was obvious to me that the whole thing was being approached from a highly professional and objective perspective. They were really interested in working out how the jury responded to evidence and argument.

How different was it working on this case to working on a real-life case?

Albeit it was condensed, there were no significant differences. I received the papers relatively shortly before the trial was due to start, when normally in a case of that gravity, I would have been involved at a much earlier stage. That said, there are certain circumstances in which I, or any other silk, take over a leading brief at very short notice, because the person originally involved is taken ill or unavailable. But as far as all the essential elements of the case – preparation as well as trial – were concerned, they were pretty consistent with real life.

Were you steered at all, or left alone to do your job?
Lucy and I were left alone so far as the strategic conduct of the case was concerned. The producers gave us no steer and didn’t seek to influence our behavior at all. The sole direction we got was when we were asked if we could see the defendant to discuss something with him, because they were very interested in getting access to those areas that otherwise are inaccessible because of privilege. While they would never have asked us to say or include something, they wanted us to see the defendant so they could film what went on between us. All the errors, as they say, are mine.

Did you believe the defendant, Simon Davis? And does it matter whether you do or not, as his defence counsel?

It doesn’t matter, actually, but I believed in him. Which is not avoiding the question! I thought he was an essentially decent man. He did have something of an odd manner. He was quite introspective, to some extent introverted, but that’s not unusual of academics, people who’ve spent a lot of time on their own immersed in a subject. I did not get the impression he was manipulative and controlling; quite the reverse, that he was really quite tolerant.

Have you advocated opposite Max Hill?

No, actually – I know Michelle very well and I have limitless respect for her. But I’ve never been professionally involved with Max. I was very much aware of him, though, and he was an extremely determined opponent.

Has Lucy Organ been your junior before?

Yes, I’ve led her on a number of occasions. Lucy works very well with me, she restrains my wilder inclinations and ensures a degree of balance.

Did or do you get nervous before a trial?
Always, because you’re entirely dependent on the response of a moment: your response to witness, a witness’s response to you. You can ask a question which elicits a disastrous answer, or fail adequately to respond to something a witness says which should have been capable of correction. So you’re living on your wits. You’re informed by preparation, knowledge of the case, anticipating the likely responses, but you’re never sure it’s going to work. You’re never sure you’re going to get it right.

Will you be watching this through your fingers?

Yes, no question! I am a moral coward. I’ll be behind the sofa, if I’m in the room at all. I’m inclined to wait for a phone call from someone I trust to say, you can come out now. It’s an enhanced version of hearing yourself on tape. My own voice drives me mad, even on the answering machine. So to see myself loping about will be unbearable.

Will your colleagues be sparing?

Oh no, utterly ruthless and they’ll enjoy every minute of it. The criticisms will be very precise and completely unforgiving. I wouldn’t expect anything less!

Are you as curious as the rest of us to find out what goes on in a jury room?
Yes. I’ve never talked to jurors about trials. At the end of a trial, you might go off to licensed premises and the jury come in and come over to say they enjoyed it or whatever. But I’ve never talked about how they voted or anything. This should offer as genuine an insight as possible into normal people’s response to a trial being played out exactly as it would be if it were a genuine allegation. I believe that juries do their absolute utmost to get it right and take it very seriously. I don’t think they lightly dismiss an allegation. I think they work very hard. Sometimes you can see they’re exhausted by their deliberations. You can see it on their faces, anxiously looking in the dock for some sort of sign in that individual as to which way they should go. I hope this encourages confidence in the system.