The suggestion of engaging the Barrister might have been made by his solicitor but as the client GBC would have had to consider the suggestion and the reasons and approve it. As such he is still engaging the Barrister through the solicitor and he is paying for it. It's up to the client what they want to do in the end. Not all clients take the advice of their lawyers. The lawyers have issued statements as to the reason why the Barrister was engaged, but this is neither here nor there, they will issue statements designed to explain things in the best light for their client.
We don't know the real reasons, but I think this came up because many of us consider that engaging a Barrister at such an early stage when one has not been charged, is an indication of a much greater concern for the way things might go than an innocent person might have. I still think that. I believe it is unusual, especially at the time the Barrister was engaged, and also the particular Barrister chosen. IMO, the lawyers think their client needs to prepare and be protected, because there is so much preparation and protection needed.
I also think that GBC's absence from the media, the search area, televised pleas for Allisons return, and any subsequent statements is interesting, especially in recent times. There has been much discussion here about what that has meant in the early stages, but over the whole time, since the Barristers have been engaged, still nothing. Personally I think it is because he has been advised not to - he is just not able to fake it enough and there are just too many possibilities of making things appear worse.
This is a messy case for sure, especially now with the roundabout issue and requests about the vehicles and movement there, and now the woman in question has engaged a lawyer.
