The Adversarial Lawyer and the Client’s Best Interest: Failures with Pre-Charge Engagement

The role of the defence is one of a zealous advocate, acting in the best interests of their client. However, a substantial body of evidence suggests that lawyers often operate as components within a procedural machinery that primarily processes the guilt or innocence of defendants. This phenomenon has led to the gradual erosion of the concept of a zealous advocacy and adversarialism. Over the 30 years, the adversarial process in England and Wales has experienced a steady transformation through incremental adjustments to the criminal justice system. The advent of the CrimPR marked a notable shift in the handling of criminal cases, ushering in a culture of cooperation where both prosecution and defense collaborate with the shared objective of upholding the CrimPR's Overriding Objective: to deal with cases justly. This transformation has steered the criminal justice process away from its adversarial origins and toward a more managerial and process-driven framework. An additional manifestation of this managerial culture emerged with the introduction of Pre-Charge Engagement (PCE) in 2021. PCE sought to divert cases trial by initiating a dialogue between defense lawyers and the police. If effectively employed, PCE could offer help to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts and expedite resolutions for complainants, suspects, and witnesses. However, it is concerning that PCE is underutilised. This article contends that defense lawyers, by not fully embracing PCE, may not be acting in the best interests of their clients and certainly deviate from the conventional conception of a defense lawyer's role.