This is not an article on the law of bail and sentencing guidelines; just my experience of the night of 11 August.

After a normal day of court and paper work, I arrived at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 9.30pm. Together with two other duty solicitors, I would represent individuals without representation, produced from police stations throughout the night, who had been charged with offences arising from the riots and looting of preceding days.

At first, all was strangely quiet. The cells were empty and the district judges in the two open courtrooms waited, with little to occupy them. Rumours of convoys of vans packed with detainees were circulated, but for the first few hours there was nothing.

Then, at about 11.30pm, detainees started to arrive at court in twos and threes. Nothing dramatic in terms of volume, and in fact throughout the night numbers never threatened to overwhelm the court as feared.

The concern for me and the other defence lawyers was not about keeping up with the pace, but with the manner in which detainees were dealt with. It was a steep learning curve. Attending the first few clients charged with non-dwelling burglary and handling stolen goods, I advised on mode of trial and bail, as I have done for years, in accordance with established law and practice.

On attending court, however, it appeared that the rules had been rewritten, at least temporarily. My words seldom fall on entirely deaf ears, but such was my perception on this occasion. Good character seemed to count for nothing; strong community ties were ignored.

By 12.30am I had seen two clients with no previous convictions who maintained their innocence – I had advised both that bail should be granted with conditions. Both clients were produced to the court; both were remanded in custody and committed to the Crown court for trial.

Feeling confused by my lack of success, I asked the prosecutor directly whether there was a blanket policy from the police, Crown Prosecution Service, or court on bail. I was met with a curt ‘no’.

When attempting to negotiate bail throughout the night, however, it was clear that the prosecution were not open to discussion. I had not by that time seen the document from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), obtained by Hodge Jones & Allen, which clearly stated that a strategic decision had been made by the MPS to apply for remand both at the police station and at court in all riot-related cases, irrespective of circumstance. This gives rise to a separate and much-publicised judicial review, but was no help to me then.

The low point was representing a young single mother of a two-year-old, with a steady job and no previous convictions. The charge was handling stolen goods found in her flat.

On walking to the courtroom from the cells, I overheard colleagues remark that if this client did not get bail, nobody had a chance. She was remanded into custody and committed for trial.

It would be a misrepresentation to suggest that nobody was bailed that night. At about 4am, representing my sixth client and a touch battle-weary, I did succeed in obtaining bail, and did so again an hour later for another client charged with burglary. Why these two and not others, I still cannot say. I also believe that one or two others were bailed that night.

I am pleased to say that in the weeks since I have been able to obtain bail for several of those remanded that night, including the single mother; but the experience of Holloway prison and the separation from her daughter will stay with her.

An objective approach and coolness of thought are fundamental characteristics of our justice system and are vital in preserving its integrity. This should apply to the police, prosecution, judiciary and defence lawyers.

However, when I finally left court at nearly midday on 12 August, it was difficult not to have an uneasy feeling that long-established procedure and considerations for important decisions for bail and mode of trial had been put to one side.

Joseph Wright is a solicitor-advocate at Hodge Jones & Allen