Lawyers who get people off Drink Drive charges

[Agnostic]

zumbruk said:

Agnostic said: I think you need to speak to a few people who have been on the receiving end of miscarriages of justice, maybe meet a few wives who have been beaten by thuggish husbands for ten years, or the Mother of a child killed by a DD, Ah, the "what about the childr-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-n?" argument beloved of all those who prefer to emote rather than think. At least I now know you can be ignored. Agnostic said: maybe, just maybe you would stop and think a little before sweeping all aside with your "Innocent until proven guilty"? Hell, why bother with due process? Just string 'em up, right?

I can't believe it! do you actually have any ears? What I'm trying to say yet again is that you can't have due process and hence any kind of fair hearing if either side get their paper trail wrong or people don't turn up. It works for both sides. As has been said by others sometimes it is obvious to all concerned that the defendant is guilty but they walk on a technicality, it isn't fair but it is legal and therefore upheld in court. It doesn't mean we have to like it when it does happen.

I never approach a case with a "string em up" attitude and endeavour to always listen to both sides, many a time I have completely changed my initial view after hearing the facts.

I think you need to look at the way you perceive people and prejudge them based on a few words in a forum!

Then perhaps come back when you are all grown up.

A

[jazzyjeff]

phillipj said:

"A Solicitor or Barrister cannot allow the court to be lied to by their client or allow the court to be deceived." This is what a solicitor told me when I asked him what he would do if his client admitted the offence to him but wanted to plead Not Guilty and fabricate a story. The solicitor said that if his client insisted on that course then he (the solicitor) would withdraw from the defence. BUT a no comment to questions or decline to "take the stand" is the usual advice given, that way the case rests or falls on the evidence and not on the lies of the defendant. The Solicitor/Barrister's integrity is retained (questionably I think) and representation is still achieved. P.S. Anyone else out there think OJ and Sion Jenkins actually DID commit the murders they were accused of despite their Not Guilty verdict and "unable to reach a verdict" respectively? >> Edited by phillipj on Tuesday 28th February 12:02

Well that's interesting. Especially when in the one case I was in court giving witness evidence against my attacker, whilst waiting outside I overheard the defendant and his barrister blatantly fabricating a lie to try and explain away the unexplainable (it didn't work of course and he went down).

On the PS - sadly 'yes' and 'yes'. If only by reference to the circumstantial evidence, what they said before and in court and their body language in video footage. Though of course, we must abide by the courts' decisions in these cases.

[phillipj]

Sadly there ARE Solicitors/Barristers prepared to 'jog' their clients memory when it comes to accounting for the damaging assertions of the prosecution.