Advice on defence barrister

[w4dge]

Can any one tell me if defence barristers are required to disclose all evidence or are they allowed to with hold, even if it proves the defendant is guilty?

[streaky]

AFAIK (and our resident lawyers will correct me), "evidence" must be mutually disclosed. However, your conversations with your legal team are "priviledged" and cannot be disclosed. Although, I do recall a belated ruling in connection with the "Bloody Sunday" enquiry (IIRC), that the legal teams had to disclose ALL information in their possession and that it is in debate as to whether this includes "priviledged" information and, indeed, whether this ruling will have wider implications - Streaky

[w4dge]

Definatly evidence not client conversation, would this be grounds for a re-trial then, if so how do I go about getting one if the defendant has already been given a not guilty verdict.

[jeffreyarcher]

So, you want to get your case reopened so that you can be found guilty?
Or are you talking civil action here? If so, that's not the same thing.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 28th May 14:27

[NickD]

If a barrister knows that there is documentation available that should be disclosed (for those reasons mentioned above re. mutual disclosure) yet the client is preventing the disclosure then at the very least the barrister has to refuse to act for the client due to the professional conduct rules.

[w4dge]

Maybe I should make it clear at this point that I was the victim and not the defendant, and it has now come to my attention that evidence was given to the defence team which was not presented, evidence which i believe was crucial and would have changed the balance of beyond reasonble doubt.

[Dwight VanDriver]

The below is an understanding of a Layman and not a Solicitor.

Section 3 Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act 1996 and S 33 Criminal Justice Act 2003 deals with disclosure by the accused.

From what I understand once Prosecution have served a copy of the indictment (charge) with their evidence on the Defence then the Defence have to serve of the Prosecution what is called a "Defence Statement" This sets out in general terms the nature of the defence and any matters they take issue with from the prosecution case. As far as I am aware this applies to Crown Court cases now. In relation to Summary Offences at Magistrates Court purely voluntary until 2005.

Regarding your later query without knowing the full story I would suggest that you consult a Solicitor and get his views as to what you seem to allege as incompatible justice.

DVD

[jeffreyarcher]

I'm still not sure that I understand the question.
Are you saying that the defence counsel were aware of factors which, if presented in court, would surely have resulted in a guilty verdict, and that being the case, were they (the defence) required to disclose such factors to the prosecution?
If so, AIUI, no.
The prosecution has to prove (in theory!) their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defence counsel believes that they cannot do that, he is entitled to defend his client, even if he believes that his client is guilty.