If the Cummings story pans out the way it appears to be doing, you have witnessed a near perfect piece of advocacy.

There are moments in cross examination when you ask the question and you know that if the answer goes one way that’s it, they are done. The skill is in keeping the poker face, waiting for the answer, assessing the answer means what you think and then weighing up when to drop

the bomb. You might not do it with the next question or the question after that, as this is the skill of the advocate. You have set it up and then you spring the trap. Doing it even half perfectly is, in itself, perfection.

But this piece of advocacy with Cummings is so brilliant because it doesn’t just take out him, it could take out every other witness on the same side. The rush of Braverman et al to defend him is more than the advocate would dare to dream.