Trial lawyer ‘repeatedly crossed line’ with rape survivor

A rape survivor who complained about the way a lawyer behaved in court says she has been vindicated after he was found to have abused his position.

Ellie Wilson claimed she was subjected to personal attacks by defence advocate Lorenzo Alonzi and felt blamed for being raped.

She said his comments in court were designed to break her down and poison the minds of the jury.

The Faculty of Advocates complaints committee said Mr Alonzi repeatedly crossed the line of what was acceptable and found that his behaviour amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct on six of the 11 issues raised.

Ms Wilson, who has waived her anonymity, said she hoped the finding would set a precedent and show that advocates “can't act with impunity”.

Inappropriate questioning

Ms Wilson's ex-boyfriend Daniel McFarlane was convicted of two rape charges which took place between December 2017 and February 2018 when he was a medical student at the University of Glasgow.

The trial ended at the High Court in Glasgow in June 2022 and McFarlane was later sentenced to five years in prison.

Ms Wilson said the court case left her feeling completely devastated.

In the wake of the trial, she crowdfunded the £3,000 needed to access the transcripts of the court proceedings before launching an official complaint about the defence advocate.

Ms Wilson's complaints claimed that when questioning her, Mr Alonzi failed to comply with rules designed to protect women in rape trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and character.

The complaints committee found the lawyer “repeatedly crossed that line even after several fairly lengthy exchanges with the trial judge".

It said the repeated nature of the conduct took it beyond what could be considered excusable or inadvertent.

The trial took place at the High Court in Glasgow

One of the judge's interventions came after Mr Alonzi asked Ms Wilson if she had heard of narcissistic personality disorder and whether she had it.

Ms Wilson replied that she did not.

The complaints committee found that asking questions without having seen a report or diagnosis by a properly qualified medical professional was “discourteous to the court and abused the privileged position” held by Mr Alonzi.

They also found that, during closing speeches, Mr Alonzi deliberately referred to matters that had been ruled inadmissible, despite knowing the trial judge would likely be forced to direct the jury to disregard them.

After McFarlane had been found guilty of rape, Mr Alonzi told the court his client “fell in love with the wrong person”, that he didn’t belong in court and that it was “difficult not to imagine some sense of injustice in it all”.

The complaints committee said the remarks were inappropriate and should not have been made.

They said it implied that the jury made an error and convicted an innocent man.

'Brutal court experience'

Ms Wilson said Mr Alonzi’s comments in court were misogynistic.

"I think they were designed to break me down," she said.

"I think they were designed to poison the minds of the jury and I think they were awful and they should never have been said.”

The 26-year-old, from Glasgow, said she hoped the committee’s findings would act as a warning to all advocates.

"I didn't want anyone else to go through what I went through," she said.

"I didn't want them to go through it at the hands of Lorenzo Alonzi or anyone else so I really hope that others don't have to suffer in the way that I did.

“We talk about why victims don't come forward... because they know they are going to face such a brutal court experience."

Respect and dignity

Sandy Brindley, from Rape Crisis Scotland, said the behaviour of defence lawyers can be a significant cause of distress and trauma.

She said: “It’s crucial that their conduct is always appropriate.

"It is entirely possible to test evidence rigorously and protect the accused’s right to a fair trial while treating complainers with respect and dignity.

“It is currently very challenging for survivors to make a formal complaint about their treatment by the defence lawyer in their case.

"Improvements must be made to complaints processes which are currently lengthy and inaccessible.”

The Scottish government said it recognised the current legislation around the regulation of legal services and complaints was "complex and dated".

It said there was a bill currently being considered by Parliament aimed at providing a "modern" system that was more accessible and affordable.

The complaints committee is still to decide the penalty it will impose on Mr Alonzi.

It could range from a written warning to an order for compensation to be paid to the Complainer not exceeding £3,000.

BBC News has attempted to contact Mr Alonzi for comment.