Today I am coincidentally in court at Nottingham where a case taken from us in the police station by our local Keres & Co ((c) @BarristerSecret ) is listed for mention. Client was facing a serious allegation and had instructed us on serious matters for years. 
He had also asked for our advice and representation in the police station on this matter, but halfway through his stay the police allowed a phone call to him on the basis of third party instructions and following a recommendation from a 'family' member he switched to Keres & Co.
Jump forward several months and he has been charged with said serious (and well-paying under legal aid) offence and has a trial in the next couple of weeks. The case is listed because his defence statement had been due 3 months previously and had not been provided.
New counsel had been instructed very recently and had concerns that any defence statement should trigger disclosure of eg. phone records. Crown responded that in the timescale it is unlikely that they will be able to comply with any disclosure requests.
Judge says that the defendant is in custody facing serious allegations, but in circumstances where fault appears to lie with the defence there may be a struggle to secure an adjournment. Meanwhile, defendant is on the video link, perhaps struggling to follow what is being said.
No extension had been applied for to allow service of the defence later than expected. There was a risk that at trial that may go against the defendant and a jury be invited to draw inferences about this failure. The firm will have had over three months to prepare the defence.
Bearing in mind cases such as this, and what we see and hear in the robing room, and from other firms it is hard to reach any other conclusion than this:
