My letter (see [2009] Gazette, 21 May, 9) was an attempt to present a less critical view of the role of Lord Hoffmann in the Pinochet case than that offered by Joshua Rozenberg in his article celebrating Lord Hoffmann’s retirement.

The challenge to Lord Hoffmann’s apparent conflict of interest was not made by Pinochet’s lawyers at the outset of the case, as one would expect, but after the ruling against their client. Christopher Murray, senior partner of Kingsley Napley, points out in his letter (see [2009] Gazette, 4 June 11), that the Lords accepted that his firm was unaware of any possible connection between Lord Hoffmann and Amnesty until after the ruling. I made the contrary claim. I should not have done so and I apologise.

As I said in my letter, the lawyers’ initiative was entirely legitimate. Having accepted instructions from Pinochet, they had to do their best for him within the bounds of propriety. They did so with characteristic thoroughness.

Mr Murray’s further criticism of my letter is not justified. The second ‘cunning manoeuvre’ which I described – also legitimate – was the submission of medical reports to the home secretary from, as I recall, Pinochet’s general practitioner and another doctor claiming that his mental state rendered him unfit to stand trial. They led the home secretary to seek further medical evidence, which persuaded him to end the extradition and allow Pinochet to return to Chile.

The home secretary’s conclusion surprised some of those who observed Pinochet’s apparent good health as he walked across the tarmac on his arrival at Santiago airport. Their scepticism was reinforced when, four years later, a Chilean judge court found him fit to stand trial after all, though in fact he was never brought to justice.

Geoffrey Bindman, (solicitor for Amnesty International in the Pinochet litigation), London