Was this the first major defence case he had led? Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial?
I note that at the time of the trial, he was a part-time judge: it's quite common, I understand, for barristers in practice to also accept appointment as recorders and sit as judge in Crown Court hearings. Nothing wrong with that - in fact, the experience and kudos it gave him must have helped with his trial work for both prosecution and defence - but it also suggests somebody who was hedging his bets career-wise and perhaps wasn't fully committed. I can't imagine George Carmen doing the same, and I gather than Anthony Arlidge never took up a recordership or served as a deputy master, though I could be wrong.
What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate? I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel. That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis. However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases. The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.