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 bestinterests of their client. However, a substantial body of evidencesuggests that lawyers often operate as components within a proceduralmachinery that primarily processes the guilt or innocence of defendants.This phenomenon has led to the gradual erosion of the concept of azealous advocacy and adversarialism. Over the 30 years, the adversarialprocess in England and Wales has experienced a steady transformationthrough incremental adjustments to the criminal justice system.The advent of the CrimPR marked a notable shift in the handling ofcriminal cases, ushering in a culture of cooperation where bothprosecution and defense collaborate with the shared objective ofupholding the CrimPR's Overriding Objective: to deal with cases justly.This transformation has steered the criminal justice process away fromits adversarial origins and toward a more managerial and process-drivenframework. An additional manifestation of this managerial cultureemerged with the introduction of Pre-Charge Engagement (PCE) in 2021.PCE sought to divert cases trial by initiating a dialogue between defenselawyers and the police. If effectively employed, PCE could offer help toreduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts and expediteresolutions for complainants, suspects, and witnesses. However, it isconcerning that PCE is underutilised. This article contends that defenselawyers, by not fully embracing PCE, may not be acting in the bestinterests of their clients and certainly deviate from the conventionalconception of a defense lawyer's role