A prominent criminal defence barrister has been publicly criticised by the lord chief justice for “patronising” and “ill-judged” behaviour during a murder trial involving a lap-dancer whose body has never been found.
In a highly unusual court of appeal judgment, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd referred Michael Wolkind QC – whose website describes him as the “UK’s top barrister” – to the professional disciplinary organisation, the Bar Standards Board.
The barrister, who was eventually sacked by his client, was said to have been “half-listening” to evidence during cross-examination while sending emails relating to other cases. Wolkind missed part of the trial judge’s summing-up speech and his diary later showed that he had arranged a meeting in another case for the afternoon, the lord chief justice said. At one stage, Wolkind’s junior counsel received an email from him confessing: “A man who worked till after 2am and restarted at 6 will be a little late arriving.”
Wolkind’s client Robert Ekaireb – a multimillionaire property developer and jeweller – is serving 22 years for the murder of his pregnant wife, Li Hua Cao, 27, who disappeared in October 2006. The judge at the time described it as a case of “extreme domestic violence”.
Singling out Wolkind as an example of a trend of defence barristers launching into “personal criticism” of prosecutors in front of a jury, the lord chief justice called on judges to ensure that the practice ceases immediately. His strongly worded comments came at the end of an appeal by Ekaireb, who lived in Hampstead, north London, against his conviction and sentence. The court of appeal said it did not doubt the safety of the conviction and upheld the sentence.
Ekaireb met his wife in November 2005 in a lap-dancing club in Dublin where she worked. They married the following summer. Her brother notified police in February 2007 that she was missing and none of the family had heard from her.
Cao’s body was never found and there was no forensic evidence of place or cause of death, but her husband was eventually convicted of her murder based on circumstantial evidence. She had never used her email, bank accounts or mobile phone after 23 October 2006.
Ekaireb was said to be a controlling man, told lies, sent text messages pretending to be his wife and the couple had had arguments about whether she continued working as a lap-dancer after they started going out.
The defence, led by Wolkind, had argued that Cao was not necessarily dead – and, if she were, Ekaireb was not responsible. They said she had left an unhappy marriage in which “she was bored by his lifestyle in London” and did not want their baby. Later text messages, the defence argued, had been sent by her.
One of the challenges pursued at the court of appeal by Ekaireb – who was represented there by another barrister, Orlando Pownall QC – was that Wolkind’s conduct “was incompetent to a degree that rendered the conviction unsafe”.
Three appeal court judges, led by the lord chief justice, said his closing speech had “not reached a level of incompetence that called into question the safety of the conviction or the fairness of the trial”.
Wolkind’s closing speech, the judgment said, was “ill-judged, patronising and contained inappropriate attempts at humour”. It was also critical of the fact that he was carrying out other work during the trial and was eventually dismissed by Ekaireb.
The appeal court said it was “surprised at the content and tone of Wolkind’s website” and directed the Bar Standards Board to consider whether it is “within the bounds of professional conduct for a member of the bar”.
Thomas added: “There is one feature of the conduct of this case which judges must ensure ceases immediately and not be repeated in any case. That conduct is making in an address to the jury personal criticism of opposing advocates in contradistinction to criticism of the prosecution case.
“We were told that the practice of making personal criticism of prosecution advocates has become a feature of some addresses to the jury made by defence advocates. In this case the personal criticism should not have been made in his addresses to the jury.”
Wolkind became a barrister in 1976 and Queen’s counsel in 1999. He has specialised in defending in high profile criminal cases and overturning convictions. He represented the Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin, in a successful appeal against his murder conviction. He is described in the latest edition of The Legal 500 as “brilliant at cross-examination and one of the best jury advocates”. He did not respond to requests for comment.
