Lawyers, defending the guilty
Discussion
Isn't a part of the fairness of our democratic system that however guilty someone is we give them the best defence opportunity we can... the minute you don't do that we as society have fallen down and are lesser people, therefore it is not just about hem, it is about maintaining fairness, etc. As a society
Even if the evidence is overwhelming your job is to provide legal advice and advocacy skills for the suspect/defendant to the best of your ability.
If they say they are innocent then that is what you must tell the court. If they tell you they are guilty then you can't lie to the court.
Contrary to popular opinion 99% of the people you meet without shoelaces in the police station are not without their human side.
But, and it is a big but, it is not for everyone and certainly not for me. For a start my chuffing clients kept confessing to me!
If they say they are innocent then that is what you must tell the court. If they tell you they are guilty then you can't lie to the court.
Contrary to popular opinion 99% of the people you meet without shoelaces in the police station are not without their human side.
But, and it is a big but, it is not for everyone and certainly not for me. For a start my chuffing clients kept confessing to me!
Access to legal advice and support is an essential in a civilised country. If anything, there are limitations to legal help.
After dealing with id parades for two years, mainly for serious offenders, made me resent what some, but by no means all, briefs would do to get their client off.
I didn't mind the trickery, lies and such. I was experienced by then, more so than most briefs, and could head off all but the quiet effective ones, and once a trick has been pulled, you don't fall for it again.
However when they bullied and put unreasonable pressure on victims for no evidential reason. It seems that they spot someone not used to their wiles and deviousness and so go into attack mode.
I've seen a video of a brief on a parade bump into a 9-year-old victim whom the offender had tried to murder. At the trial the brief made up a story of the DI at the scene throwing evidence into the scene and gaining the nickname 'Frisby'.
It was completely manufactured, you know, a lie. Yet it was the basis of the defence.
The brief will have, at the time of the parade, a great degree of disclosure so will know the full amount of evidence against the offender so will know they are guilty. Then, before the Codes of Practice were changed for the better, a brief could demand an ID parade even if there was ample DNA evidence so the parade was not required. This meant that defendants would have to stand in front of a big, old inspector who will tell her what terror they had undergone.
They were victims all over again.
As with so much in life, there's the honest ones and the dishonest ones. The thing with dishonest briefs is that they commit no offences that they can be disciplined for.
After dealing with id parades for two years, mainly for serious offenders, made me resent what some, but by no means all, briefs would do to get their client off.
I didn't mind the trickery, lies and such. I was experienced by then, more so than most briefs, and could head off all but the quiet effective ones, and once a trick has been pulled, you don't fall for it again.
However when they bullied and put unreasonable pressure on victims for no evidential reason. It seems that they spot someone not used to their wiles and deviousness and so go into attack mode.
I've seen a video of a brief on a parade bump into a 9-year-old victim whom the offender had tried to murder. At the trial the brief made up a story of the DI at the scene throwing evidence into the scene and gaining the nickname 'Frisby'.
It was completely manufactured, you know, a lie. Yet it was the basis of the defence.
The brief will have, at the time of the parade, a great degree of disclosure so will know the full amount of evidence against the offender so will know they are guilty. Then, before the Codes of Practice were changed for the better, a brief could demand an ID parade even if there was ample DNA evidence so the parade was not required. This meant that defendants would have to stand in front of a big, old inspector who will tell her what terror they had undergone.
They were victims all over again.
As with so much in life, there's the honest ones and the dishonest ones. The thing with dishonest briefs is that they commit no offences that they can be disciplined for.
Just to add some more balance to Derek's point, I used to defend people in the days of the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, who were not really concerned about the guilt of the accused, rather than fitting them up to get a conviction. In those days it was hard to see who the criminals actually were!
Sometimes I had to fight trickery with more trickery so as to try and get a level playing field, but normally I would just try to do the job fairly.
The point about not defending someone when they tell you they did it has already been made, but if that didn't happen ,and it very rarely did, then I took the view that everyone was entitled to some help in telling their side of the story, no matter how unlikely that story might be. It's rather like appearing in a play. You have your lines, and your job requires you to make the best effort you can in making them convincing.
I never found it that hard.
Sometimes I had to fight trickery with more trickery so as to try and get a level playing field, but normally I would just try to do the job fairly.
The point about not defending someone when they tell you they did it has already been made, but if that didn't happen ,and it very rarely did, then I took the view that everyone was entitled to some help in telling their side of the story, no matter how unlikely that story might be. It's rather like appearing in a play. You have your lines, and your job requires you to make the best effort you can in making them convincing.
I never found it that hard.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They call it the taxi rank principle. They don't choose clients. When a taxi takes a job he does it, no arguments, be it 2 mi!es or 200. A lawyers job is to get a fair hearing for everyone. The court decides guilt. Now of course a lawyer feels guilty if he gets a criminal off just as he does if an innocent man goes down. Its an imperfect system but until we come up with better the adversarial hearing is what we have.Derek Smith said:
Access to legal advice and support is an essential in a civilised country. If anything, there are limitations to legal help.
After dealing with id parades for two years, mainly for serious offenders, made me resent what some, but by no means all, briefs would do to get their client off.
I didn't mind the trickery, lies and such. I was experienced by then, more so than most briefs, and could head off all but the quiet effective ones, and once a trick has been pulled, you don't fall for it again.
However when they bullied and put unreasonable pressure on victims for no evidential reason. It seems that they spot someone not used to their wiles and deviousness and so go into attack mode.
I've seen a video of a brief on a parade bump into a 9-year-old victim whom the offender had tried to murder. At the trial the brief made up a story of the DI at the scene throwing evidence into the scene and gaining the nickname 'Frisby'.
It was completely manufactured, you know, a lie. Yet it was the basis of the defence.
The brief will have, at the time of the parade, a great degree of disclosure so will know the full amount of evidence against the offender so will know they are guilty. Then, before the Codes of Practice were changed for the better, a brief could demand an ID parade even if there was ample DNA evidence so the parade was not required. This meant that defendants would have to stand in front of a big, old inspector who will tell her what terror they had undergone.
They were victims all over again.
As with so much in life, there's the honest ones and the dishonest ones. The thing with dishonest briefs is that they commit no offences that they can be disciplined for.
Trickery, lies, bullying and unreasonable pressure? Surely you're describing the police rather than the defence?After dealing with id parades for two years, mainly for serious offenders, made me resent what some, but by no means all, briefs would do to get their client off.
I didn't mind the trickery, lies and such. I was experienced by then, more so than most briefs, and could head off all but the quiet effective ones, and once a trick has been pulled, you don't fall for it again.
However when they bullied and put unreasonable pressure on victims for no evidential reason. It seems that they spot someone not used to their wiles and deviousness and so go into attack mode.
I've seen a video of a brief on a parade bump into a 9-year-old victim whom the offender had tried to murder. At the trial the brief made up a story of the DI at the scene throwing evidence into the scene and gaining the nickname 'Frisby'.
It was completely manufactured, you know, a lie. Yet it was the basis of the defence.
The brief will have, at the time of the parade, a great degree of disclosure so will know the full amount of evidence against the offender so will know they are guilty. Then, before the Codes of Practice were changed for the better, a brief could demand an ID parade even if there was ample DNA evidence so the parade was not required. This meant that defendants would have to stand in front of a big, old inspector who will tell her what terror they had undergone.
They were victims all over again.
As with so much in life, there's the honest ones and the dishonest ones. The thing with dishonest briefs is that they commit no offences that they can be disciplined for.
PorkInsider said:
bmw535i said:
Trickery, lies, bullying and unreasonable pressure? Surely you're describing the police rather than the defence?
battered said:
No.
In any case the first thing a lawyer says to a client is DO NOT admit guilt to me even if you are, if you intend to plead innocent, because a lawyer can't deliberately lie in court. This means he can't say 'my client is innocent' if he has been told otherwise.
So from that the lawyer should walk away if that happens? Or does the lawyer then debrief the client to say that never happened?In any case the first thing a lawyer says to a client is DO NOT admit guilt to me even if you are, if you intend to plead innocent, because a lawyer can't deliberately lie in court. This means he can't say 'my client is innocent' if he has been told otherwise.
Rob Rinder did a seried on five live caused raising the bar, 1st episode was how do you defend someone who you know is guilty. several serious QC's were on and they said there objective is to present the best defence possible
there feelings do not come into it.
reassuringly though they did say about 99% of jury cases in the uk the jury get it right.
interesting listen if you can find it.
there feelings do not come into it.
reassuringly though they did say about 99% of jury cases in the uk the jury get it right.
interesting listen if you can find it.
bmw535i said:
Trickery, lies, bullying and unreasonable pressure? Surely you're describing the police rather than the defence?
You are forgiven because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I don't think I've ever deliberately bumped into a 9-year-old victim of attempted murder to frighten her. I don't think I've ever tried to intimidate a woman who'd had a glass smashed into her face whilst she was waiting for a taxi and I know I have never lied in court nor tried to mislead the magistrates or a judge/jury.
I could give you the name and partnership of the first one, but as he's dead naming with do nothing. I could give you the name of the second one, but when I phoned the partnership and told them that if he ever did anything like that again I'd send the video of both instances to their discipline body. I could give many, many instances of the third.
It was not only because it was a serious offence to lied it court that I always, but always, told the truth. I knew that it was the right thing to do. There were a number of briefs who lied and misled in court. In one case I documented it and asked CPS to cast an eye over my evidence. A very pleasant brief reviewed what I'd written, said that 'everyone' knows about him where he normally struts his stuff, in London, and told me to go ahead if I wanted, but nothing would come of it.
To add my balance, most briefs do not act that way. They do an honest job. However, in my two years as ID officer the majority of the jobs were 'big' ones and this did tend to attract the London bent briefs. I used to get on with@our' briefs. I'd chat to them in the street and if met in a coffee shop I'd sit at their table and vice versa. But the ID unit put paid to that.
Derek Smith said:
bmw535i said:
Trickery, lies, bullying and unreasonable pressure? Surely you're describing the police rather than the defence?
You are forgiven because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I don't think I've ever deliberately bumped into a 9-year-old victim of attempted murder to frighten her. I don't think I've ever tried to intimidate a woman who'd had a glass smashed into her face whilst she was waiting for a taxi and I know I have never lied in court nor tried to mislead the magistrates or a judge/jury.
I could give you the name and partnership of the first one, but as he's dead naming with do nothing. I could give you the name of the second one, but when I phoned the partnership and told them that if he ever did anything like that again I'd send the video of both instances to their discipline body. I could give many, many instances of the third.
It was not only because it was a serious offence to lied it court that I always, but always, told the truth. I knew that it was the right thing to do. There were a number of briefs who lied and misled in court. In one case I documented it and asked CPS to cast an eye over my evidence. A very pleasant brief reviewed what I'd written, said that 'everyone' knows about him where he normally struts his stuff, in London, and told me to go ahead if I wanted, but nothing would come of it.
To add my balance, most briefs do not act that way. They do an honest job. However, in my two years as ID officer the majority of the jobs were 'big' ones and this did tend to attract the London bent briefs. I used to get on with@our' briefs. I'd chat to them in the street and if met in a coffee shop I'd sit at their table and vice versa. But the ID unit put paid to that.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff