The challenge of courtroom drama in The Archers

Making an episode of The Archers is a bit like engraving the Mona Lisa on a grain of rice. Each one is a day told in just 13 minutes. The challenge in bringing Helen's trial to life has been not only to distil hours of court time into those precious minutes, but also to balance realistic legal procedure with creating a compelling drama.

Throughout the development of the storyline we've worked with trusted legal advisors to make Borchester Crown Court as accurate as possible. We know that our listeners really care about this, especially those in the legal profession. Here are answers to a few of the questions we have been asked.

Why do you have a barrister doing a solicitor's work?

We have knowingly developed the role of Anna Tregorran, the daughter of an existing Ambridge character, so that we can chart her growing professional relationship with Helen. We've seen that the outcome of the case matters very, very, much to Anna because of her own past. So, it's added another dimension to the storyline.

But aren't barristers banned from taking evidence from defence witnesses they will later call in a trial?

That used to be the case, but the rules have changed. The barristers' code of conduct now allows barristers to take statements from defence witnesses.

Why can't Anna talk to Pat and Kirsty about the case?

Kirsty, then Pat, became prosecution witnesses after they had given statements to the police. Because of this Anna told them both that it was not appropriate for her to speak to them. She would have had to get permission from the Police or Crown Prosecution Service to communicate with Pat and Kirsty, and someone from the prosecution would be present at any meeting. If Pat or Kirsty said anything of use it would be fed straight back to the prosecution, ruining any potential advantage to the defence.

In this case, Pat and Kirsty have no information which Helen couldn't herself divulge, so Anna decided she didn't need to speak to them, and alert the prosecution. Anna would have read all the police statements before the trial, so she would already have an inkling of how Kirsty, for one, could be useful to the defence.

Why can't Pat and Kirsty, or Henry, see Helen?

It is standard practice that defendants and prosecution witnesses are told not to communicate, to prevent accusations of interference or bias. In theory they could speak and not discuss the case, but as history teaches us that witnesses and defendants don't understand or ignore that rule, the approach is to forbid communication. In exceptional circumstances, the witness can apply to the prosecution for permission to speak to the defendant. Pat asked to be allowed to join Helen for the birth of Jack, but DS Madeley recommended refusal because, she felt, Pat and Helen would not be able to resist talking about the case.

Helen has not been allowed to see Henry as he too is a prosecution witness. His interview with a specially trained police officer was videoed a few days after the stabbing. Although the prosecution decided to play the recorded interview in court, they also had the option of Henry giving evidence live via a video link, hence the same rule applies to him as to Pat or Kirsty. Whether Rob could have coached Henry is another question. Rob, as the apparent victim, is also a prosecution witness. He shouldn't discuss evidence with another witness but Rob can see Henry, when Helen can't, because unlike her he's not a defendant.

Anna hasn't produced a Defence Case Statement for Helen.

The Defence Case Statement, as its name suggests, outlines the case that the defence will be making. Anna has produced one, and it was served to the court at Helen's Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing, in May. The statement said that she would be running a defence of Self Defence. It hasn't been mentioned explicitly in the trial since there's only so much time for procedural detail.

Is Anna doing a good job defending Helen?

Time will tell... Helen hadn't given her much to work with before the start of the trial. Because of the constraints of a 13-minute episode we've dipped in and out of her cross examination of Rob and Kirsty, for example. Other questions have been asked, and the jury may have heard more than we have...

If Helen is found guilty what will happen to Henry and Jack?

Prison Mother and Baby Units (MBUs) take infants up to 18 months old. If Helen is found guilty and receives a long sentence, rather than separate Jack from her when he is 18 months old a plan will be drawn up by the MBU to part them much sooner. It's thought to be less distressing for a young baby than a toddler.

Irrespective of the verdict, we have a date at the Family Court on Wednesday 14 September for a hearing which will decide where Henry and Jack will live. If Helen is found not guilty, will they live with her or Rob? If she is found guilty, will the children live with Rob or Pat and Tony?