Last week, a New York federal judge sentenced the rapper and producer Sean “Diddy” Combs to four years and two months in prison. He also  imposed a $500,000 fine, and ordered five years of supervised release. This followed his conviction in July on two counts of transporting individuals for the purpose of prostitution under the Mann Act. He was acquitted of the more serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges. Prosecutors requested a sentence of at least 11 years; the defence sought 14 months.

At the sentencing hearing Combs apologised to his victims, family, and community, describing his conduct as “disgusting, shameful and sick.” The judge noted that Combs had “abused the power and control” over women he professed to love, and that a substantial sentence was necessary to “send a message” about accountability for abuse.

We reviewed contemporaneous reporting of the hearing and subsequent newspaper reports. Our reflections are set out below. 

1. Inappropriate Emotional Display by Counsel

Nicole Westmoreland, one of Combs’ lawyers, broke down and sobbed during her submissions:

“I’m crying. He said don’t be afraid to dream, just remember to wake up and put actions behind your dreams. And then he said, don’t forget to help others. That changed my life.”

This display lacked professionalism and decorum. Emotion of this kind does not assist a sentencing judge, nor the client. 

It may be that Ms Westmoreland had become too emotionally involved in the case. She stated that she had been in contact with Combs every day since her involvement, and she has previously disclosed that she was the victim of a sexual assault in 2001. While we cannot know, it is possible that these factors contributed to the emotional aspects of her delivery. 

In such circumstances, it might have been preferable for another member of Combs’ sizeable legal team to deliver this part of the mitigation on his behalf. Doing so would not have prejudiced Combs, and would have ensured that submissions were made with the necessary detachment and focus required in a sentencing exercise.

2. Expressing personal opinions / providing a testimonial

Westmoreland went on to say:

“Our community finally has a seat at the table, a voice, and after Sean Combs figured out how to move within the industry, he moved on to help others.”

“That changed my life.”

Personal testimonials from counsel serve no proper function in sentencing and may cross ethical boundaries. Counsel’s feelings or personal experiences are immaterial. A plea in mitigation should be confined to legitimate mitigating factors, such as rehabilitation, expressions of genuine remorse, etc. not the advocate’s subjective response to the defendant’s previous good conduct.

3. Deflecting from Criminal Conduct

Ms Westmoreland referred repeatedly to Combs’ business achievements and community involvement. While good character and previous contributions are relevant, they must be presented carefully. The implication that success in music or philanthropy should outweigh serious criminal conduct risks appearing to minimise the harm to the victims.

Judges are unlikely to be persuaded by submissions that imply a defendant’s status or public profile warrants special consideration. Counsel needed to be more strategic in both tone and content. She could have acknowledged Combs’ past achievements, and then addressed the wider consequences of his conduct. A more measured submission might have included: “He accepts that he alone is responsible for his downfall. He will have to live with the damage to his legacy, to his reputation, and to those he claims to have inspired. That, too, is a form of punishment, in my submission.” 

4. Theatricality and Self-Promotion

Co-counsel, Brian Steel, began his submissions by declaring:

“I am honoured to practise in this majestic courthouse. I sit here with tears in my eyes. I can’t believe we are here.”

This overly emotive and theatrical tone was inappropriate and transparently self-serving. The judge may have interpreted this declaration as intended more for media or public consumption than anything relevant to sentencing.

Statements of this kind contribute little to the sentencing exercise and may be perceived as performative. 

5. Unrealistic Sentencing Submissions

Co-counsel Marc Agnifilo conceded that the defence request for a 14-month sentence, effectively time served, was “asking for a lot.” That, if anything, understated the position. According to the prosecution, the applicable sentencing guideline range was 51 to 63 months. 

Advancing a sentence that falls markedly outside the applicable guideline range, without cogent and well-substantiated reasons, arguably diminishes counsel’s credibility in the eyes of the court.

Thom Dyke, is a barrister at Deka Chambers. His practice spans serious crime, human rights, prison law, and police law. He is regularly instructed in sensitive and high-profile matters, especially those involving overlaps between civil and criminal law or multiple jurisdictions.

His peers and instructing solicitors describe him as “an excellent advocate whose personal approach to clients is second to none” and “exceptionally talented. He is ranked in Chambers & Partners and has been engaged in work such as the Operation Northleigh investigation into the Grenfell Tower disaster on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.

 The Interview 

1. Choosing Crime: What made you gravitate toward criminal law in particular, and stick with it despite the challenges and the demands?

I don’t relate to those people who say they wanted to be a criminal barrister since they were in short trousers.  The truth is that I didn’t end up in crime until after an ill-judged decision to undertake a commercial chancery pupillage, and even then, I don’t think I really had any proper idea of what it involved.  I suspect that 90% of the criminal Bar would say that we stick with it because criminal advocacy is an addiction, and none of us are temperamentally suited to doing anything else.  Once you’ve tasted the highs and the lows of criminal advocacy, nothing else quite compares.

2. Advocacy and Persuasion: What do you think makes someone a persuasive advocate?

I remember making an application a few years ago, and when I sat down, the judge turned to my opponent and said, “well, Mr Dyke is obviously right, isn’t he?”  My opponent allowed himself a half-smile, and spent the next hour dismantling my argument, piece by piece.  At the end, the judge declared my submissions to be not as obviously right as he’d first thought, and found against me.  What struck me was the humility of my opponent’s submissions.  There was none of the sarcasm you sometimes see used to bolster a weak point.  It brought home how truly great advocates are able to make themselves almost invisible and let the ineffable logic of their argument do all the hard work.

3. On Teaching Advocacy: You’re a pupil supervisor and train advocates at Inner Temple. What is the most common advocacy mistake you see when training advocates?

Time and again young barristers ask filler questions which serve no purpose whatsoever.  In examination-in-chief it detracts from the substance of their case, and in cross-examination it allows the witness a priceless opportunity to undermine their case.  There’s a feeling the poor advocate has worked so hard to get to the point where they are on their feet that they are damn well going to make the most of it, whether anyone wants to listen or not.  Fortunately, it’s an easy mistake to fix, and the results are immediately apparent, which is as satisfying to them as it is to me.

4. Courtroom Commendation: In R v Lewis [2014] 1 WLR 2027, the Court of Appeal noted that: “Mr Dyke has argued that dry issue of law on paper and orally with fortitude and skill.” How did it feel to read those words in black and white? In a profession where we’re often our own toughest critics, do you ever allow yourself to feel proud?

It’s always nice to receive praise from the bench, especially when you’ve worked hard on a difficult case.  But as any honest barrister will tell you, the moment when the judgment starts describing you in glowing terms as the greatest advocate since Norman Birkett, is the moment that you know you’re going to lose the case on the merits.  Those quotes make great fodder for your profile on chambers’ website, but they are secondary to the outcome of the case.  In this profession it’s as dangerous to feel pride at victory, as it is futile to feel shame after a loss.

5. Cross-Examination Style: How would you describe your cross-examination style, and has it changed over the years?

In my early years I fell into the common error of seeing cross-examination as a process by which a barrister batters their witness into submission.  It’s not a particularly effective way of persuading your tribunal, and the more experience I got, the more I realised that the most powerful cross-examinations are those which give the witness the space to damn themselves.  I can think of no better recent example of this than in the Post Office inquiry, where Sir Wyn Williams asked three entirely innocuous questions of Paula Vennells.  He then asked her ‘why?’  Because of the framing of his questions, she was unable to answer, and sat in a dejected silence which was more revealing than any fire and brimstone cross-examination might have been able to uncover (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGAi6lqaORE from 2:03:15).

6. Guantánamo Reflections: In 2024, you travelled to Guantánamo Bay to observe the trial of the 9/11 defendants, a visit that formed the basis of your London Review of Books article Detained in Guantánamo. You wrote about the use of so-called “clean team” interrogations and how years of torture had tainted the reliability of those confessions, warning that admitting such evidence would “greatly undermine the actual and apparent fairness of the criminal proceeding.”  What was your overriding impression of Guantánamo? And what do you most want people to understand about what is still happening there?

Too few people appreciate there are still ongoing trial proceedings or that the half-dozen remaining detainees are unlikely to ever be released.  My hope is that public understanding may improve with the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal against the recent decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to quash plea deals from three of the 9/11 defendants.  Guantánamo is a difficult place to describe without resorting to the cliché of ‘Kafkaesque’, but I think it’s best represented by Hannah Arendt’s phrase, as embodying the “banality of evil”.  My piece for the London Review of Books (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/thom-dyke/short-cuts) is a good place to start, but for anyone who wants to find out more, I wholeheartedly recommend reading America’s Trial by John Ryan (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Americas-Trial-Torture-Case-Guantanamo/dp/1510778918/), together with the redoubtable Carol Rosenberg’s journalism for the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/by/carol-rosenberg).

7. The Times Crossword: You are known to enjoy The Times crossword, what do you enjoy about it, and does it sharpen any skills that help in your legal practice?

It’s important to have something which takes you away from the stresses of the day job, and it doesn’t really matter much what you choose, as long as it’s something you enjoy.  For me, a good cryptic crossword is ideal.  The Times is difficult enough to require a bit of effort to complete, which makes it all the more satisfying, and I can dip in and out during a busy day.  One of my favourite clues from recent years is: Silence notifications (7,6).  I’ll leave it to your readers to work out the answer for themselves…

8. The Case That Stays With You: Is there one case you’ve worked on that still lingers with you, professionally or personally?

Oddly the case which has stuck with me is a case which never made it to trial.  It involved a man accused of failing to bury his mother’s body.  Although the case raised interesting and novel arguments regarding criminal liability for an omission, after a proper application of the Full Code Test for Crown Prosecutors, we decided it was not in the public interest to proceed.  Offering no evidence was undoubtedly the right thing to do, and reminded me of the need for prosecutors to always keep in mind the need to prosecute cases fairly, without losing sight of the public interest test.

9. The Future of Advocacy: What do you think will define the next generation of criminal advocates, and what skills will be most essential?

When I had my first mini-pupillage, I was told that there was no future for the criminal Bar.  That was as untrue then as it is now.  Whilst we have an adversarial legal system, we will need barristers trained in the art of forensic advocacy.  That advocacy may be in front of different types of tribunals (if the Leveson reforms are implemented), but it doesn’t change the underlying demand for the skills of advocacy.  I suspect one of the most significant practical challenges will be the explosion in open-source evidence and scepticism about its reliability.  Some of that scepticism is well-founded, but there are pervasive myths about the degree to which electronic evidence may be manipulated.  The next generation of advocates need to grapple with the tricky question of how such evidence can best be presented to juries.

10. Stranded on a Desert Island: You’re stranded on a desert island, no rescue in sight and no tools to aid your escape. You can take three items with you for comfort, survival, or sanity. What are they, and why?

The first item is a copy of the Decca recording of Der Ring des Nibelungen, conducted by Georg Solti (and some way of playing it).  Second, the complete works of PG Wodehouse.  And third, a collection of The Times crosswords (and a decent dictionary).  These three items would provide an amenable way to pass the relatively short period of time before my lack of practical survival skills resulted in my inevitable demise.

Barrister Apprenticeships: A New Route to Qualification by 2026

A new barrister apprenticeship scheme could be in place as early as 2026. Developed in collaboration with the Bar Standards Board and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, the scheme aims to offer an alternative route to qualification that is more accessible and financially sustainable for aspiring barristers.

The model is designed to operate similarly to the established solicitor apprenticeship route. Over five to six years, apprentices would work and train simultaneously, gaining practical experience while completing academic and vocational components of Bar training.

Tim Coulson, chair of the Trailblazer Group and CEO of Cornwall Street Barristers, reports growing interest among common law sets, law firms, and government bodies. For smaller chambers, apprenticeships are seen as a way to attract candidates from local communities and build a pipeline of talent without the financial pressures of traditional pupillage funding.

However, the scheme is not without its obstacles. The government’s recent decision to withdraw funding for apprentices aged 22 and over poses a serious challenge. There are also concerns around regulatory oversight, consistency in training, and whether chambers, particularly smaller ones, will have the capacity to support apprentices over a multi-year period.

Supporters argue that the route offers a practical solution to widening access to the profession and addressing long-standing barriers faced by state-educated candidates. Critics remain cautious, particularly about quality assurance and the profession’s overall readiness to embrace such structural change.

The proposal comes at a time of growing recognition that existing pathways to the Bar may be unsustainable for many prospective candidates. Whether this initiative gains the widespread support needed remains to be seen.

Source: Legal Cheek, 26 September 2025

Editor’s comment

Barristers in England and Wales have not always needed a university degree to be called to the Bar. Prior to the mid-20th century, many barristers qualified without holding a degree. Instead, they followed a route based on membership of an Inn of Court, dining requirements, self-directed study, and passing the Bar examinations. As late as the 1960s, it was possible to become a barrister without attending university, provided the candidate passed the Bar exams and met the other requirements set by the Inns of Court.

By the late 1970s, legal education in England and Wales underwent major reform, catalysed by the 1971 Ormrod Report. The report proposed a three-stage structure: academic, professional, and continuing education. Universities took on the academic stage, but professional bodies retained control over course accreditation. The report effectively made law a graduate-only profession, ending clerkship-based routes and requiring a degree for barristers from 1979. 

If the apprenticeship model maintains the necessary rigour, it could offer a viable alternative to the academic route that has dominated for over half a century. The question is whether the Bar can broaden access without compromising standards.

Baniulyte v R [2025] EWCA Crim 1205

Judgment delivered 4 October 2025

Background 

The appellant, Ms Lurdita Baniulyte, was convicted at the Crown Court in 2022 of two counts of supplying Class A drugs: crack cocaine and diamorphine, contrary to section 4(1) and (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The prosecution case was that the appellant had acted as a drugs runner within a County Lines operation. She was apprehended in possession of a mobile phone used to facilitate drug supply, and drugs concealed on her person. The prosecution alleged she had played a significant operational role.

At trial, the sole defence advanced was duress, on the basis that she had acted under threats of violence. This defence was rejected by the jury. No defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was raised before the jury. The Act applies to victims of trafficking or exploitation who commit certain offences as a direct consequence of their exploitation.

Grounds of Appeal

Over two years post-conviction, the appellant sought to appeal against her conviction on the ground that her trial had been unfair due to the failure to raise a potential statutory defence under section 45 of the MSA 2015. It was argued that trial counsel had failed to advise the appellant properly in relation to the statutory defence, and that had it been pursued, there was a realistic prospect of acquittal.

Extension of Time and Merits

Despite the delay of over two years in bringing the appeal, the Court granted an extension of time, having been satisfied that the appeal was arguable and of real merit.

Decision

The Court held that the conviction was unsafe. Had the statutory defence been properly considered and raised, there was a realistic possibility that the jury would have acquitted.

Accordingly, the conviction was quashed.

Anonymity and Reporting Restrictions

An application was made on the appellant’s behalf for anonymity and reporting restrictions, on the basis that she had been a victim of trafficking. However, the Court reaffirmed the principle of open justice, as established in R v L; R v V [2011] EWCA Crim 2064, and found no sufficient grounds to justify derogating from that principle in this case.

Editor’s Comment

Barrister, Fatima Jama, has provided an interesting and insightful analysis of Baniulyte v R in her recent article, “Baniulyte – Modern Slavery Defence and the Limits of Anonymity” (30 September 2025). Her commentary highlights two central aspects of the case: the failures of the criminal justice system to identify and protect potential victims of trafficking, and the stringent threshold for anonymity in criminal appeals. Jama's focus on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning around open justice is particularly noteworthy. She draws attention to the difficulty defendants face in establishing the necessity of reporting restrictions, even in cases involving trafficking and exploitation.

The article can be accessed here: https://www.mountfordchambers.com/baniulyte-modern-slavery-defence-and-the-limits-of-anonymity/

P.S. Next week I’m running a workshop on case analysis & cross-examination:

Date: Thursday, 16 October 2025
Time: 6:30–8:00pm (UK)
Attendance Fee: £47 (credited back if you join the Advocacy Skills Membership within 7 days of the workshop)

During the 90 minute workshop, we will break down, step by step,  how to approach the cross-examination of a witness. This is a practical opportunity to discuss case analysis techniques, refine your strategy, and strengthen your cross-examination skills in a structured, supportive environment. 

Click here to learn more and reserve your spot