What should the defence barrister have done at sentencing?

[dazed]

Long story short:
I was bullied into pleading guilty to breach of a restraining order at Crown Court, a breach which I still strongly claim I had "valid reason" to do.
The understanding in return was that there would be STRONG mitigation at the sentencing.
The whole thing was done in 20 minutes; the (incredibly expensive) defence barrister said 470 words according to the transcript, and was "incredibly weak" according to someone else in court.

I want to put in a complaint to the solicitor; is it worth me posting a redacted version of the transcript here, along with where I think he failed me?
I mean, there's normally supposed to be a mitigation in advance of sentence, isn't there? I've not been in Crown before, but that was my understanding.

Incidentally, the transcript said "Reporting restrictions: Yes", which I assume was because the hearing was related to a family court order.
However, it still appeared in the press, even though I told them to take it off their site.

[atticus]

You pleaded guilty. Why?

As to the 470 words, this is 1.5 pages of A4. That can be sufficient to get a clear point across. Quality is surely what counts, and not quantity. You may have also have heard the mantra "clarity + brevity = impact".

So the question is whether the best points were made in mitigation, and if not, why not. Questions you should ask your lawyers.

[dslippy]

And court proceedings can be published in a way which is compliant with a reporting restrictions order. Many family court proceedeings law reports begin a paragrapgh saying that reporting restrictions apply.

We can have no way of judging the quality of what was said, but confirm that you should not leave court feeling that you had been bullied into pleading guilty.