Solicitor vs. Barrister

[Tdm]

I'm new to any legal problems, in fact I did not know the difference between a solicitor and barrister before being accused of rape. Initially it seemed to me like a solicitor was the person who did all the fact finding and book work and then a barrister was introduced to present your case to a judge and jury.

I've now read that there were somewhat recent changes to the way things work in the UK legal system that allows solicitors to represent you in criminal court and barristers to deal directly with the client. It compared lawyers to doctors stating: If you have a health problem but don't know what it is, you would go to your GP who would assess your condition and then determine which consultant or specialist you should see. A person needing law advice would go to a solicitor (GP) who would asses the legal problem and send you to a specialist barrister (consultant).

My question is, since I already know my problem and which specialist I need to seek, am I better off going directly to a barrister who specializes in false rape accusations?

Any comments or experiences are welcome

[Casehardened]

Some solicitors have obtained a HRA qualification which basically means they can speak in court. This can be beneficial to the defendant if they cannot obtain legal aid (or prefer to go down the private route) as there will only be one set of fees to negotiate.

However to use your medical analogy, whilst some GP's now undertake minor surgery, would you be happy for them to do your heart transplant which is what the medical equivalent of a rape case is. The HRA route would be ok for, say a serious motoring offence.

Direct access to barristers is really designed for consultancy purposes (so you don't need to be referred by your GP!!) to get advice on whether your proposed litigation will succeed or whether you have good grounds for appeal. I suspect that no barrister will take on a rape case from cold without it having been researched and prepared by a solicitor, after all their reputation depends on winning cases not losing them.

However there is nothing to stop you researching a barrister and asking your solicitor if they could be used (bearing in mind the vexed question of fees and legal aid) but against this you will need to consider whether a team (i.e. solicitor and barrister who have previously worked together and have a track record of winning cases) will better serve your needs.

[Rights Fighter]

I asked a barrister who I often liaise with (direct access for appealing convictions) if he is able to take on a trial direct access, without a solicitor. He said he probably could but would ask the Bar Council.

However, you would still have to pay for his time in preparation, witness statements etc. It's cheaper than paying for a solicitor and a barrister. However, please note you cannot instruct a solicitor on legal aid and pay counsel privately, or vice versa.

[Tdm]

Thank you both for your feedback. It's helpful.

To further my question:
I've been advised that using an experienced female barrister can be a fairly effective ploy.
I know there are many suggested solicitors on here (mainly Gerry) but does anyone know if he requests particular barristers?
Also, any suggestions on successful female barristers?

Perhaps if it is to go to court, it may be worth selecting a barrister who recommends a solicitor to work with. Sort of doing things backwards but will still get the end result of good team work as suggested in the above reply.

Am I talking out of my ass here?! Don't be shy to put me in my place if I am.