Some papers (inevitably including the Mail) have rushed to criticise the lawyers who represented people who claimed to have been brutalised by British troops.
There is a gulf of understanding between the public and the legal profession. One of the questions that any defence brief will hear regularly is "how can you defend paedophiles, or rapists, or whatever is tabloid monster of the month?"
Of course the answer is that anyone, however heinous his crime, is entitled to have his defence put professionally and thoroughly. I am often asked what crimes anger or upset me personally, and I always answer that emotion has no part to play in my job, and that my colleagues and I must consider the evidence solely on its merits.
In some countries, especially dictatorships, being a defence lawyer carries risks. In many cases those risks can involve physical harm. Compared to that, a slagging off in the Mail is small stuff, but the principle is the same.
As an ordinary member of the public I understand fully your remark about everybody being entitled to the best defence etc. However, along with many others, I find it difficult when it is obvious that someone is guilty no matter how much you review the facts, the trial (or whatever) then confirms this. The defence lawyer (if he is any sort of normal, rational person) must have seen this and yet he STILL took the case and earned money from it. I understand that, taking my argument to the extreme, it would mean that some people would not be able to have any defence representation at all, but surely it must be morally wrong to take a case when you absolutely KNOW the person is guilty and is likely to be found so unless you can find some loophole which will enable him to evade his just punishment.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that those are precisely the cases where you want a competent defence lawyer.
DeleteYou want to be utterly confident that when the criminal goes down, everyone knows that they're guilty, and that despite the best efforts of a true professional, has received the punishment they deserve; you don't want anyone going "yes, but if only they'd had a competent defence lawyer, they'd have got a fine instead of life imprisonment".
Most lawyers in my experience have a fairly think rind on them, and, absent the threat of death or injury, let such slagging slide off their back like oil off a salad fork. Some few, in fact, relish the publicity, for it can lead to more work from the better paying class of the heinous persuasion.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - the Code of Conduct does not permit an advocate to put forward a positive defence for someone who they know is guilty. That is an entirely different thing from defending someone whose version of events is not very plausible or who is merely likely to be found guilty, because it is the role of the bench or jury to decide what they believe, and neither the prosecution nor defence can step into that role.
ReplyDeleteIf we denied an adequate defence to those who were definitely guilty, who would decide whether someone was "definitely" guilty? The CPS? Or would we need a jury to decide guilt before a trial could start?
There are plenty of "hopeless" cases that only start to look less black and white once somebody does all the work. It would be a miscarriage of justice if advocates could take a case and then decide not to bother working on it. Similarly, history is littered with cases where guilt was obvious beyond doubt, until 20 years later when the Court of Appeal finds that something went wrong.
Are you equally concerned for the morality of a prosecutor who suspects that the defendant might be innocent?
It is not always just a matter of guilty or not guilty. Many of the people who commit the most serious of offences are mentally unwell. They would be unable to understand their own actions let alone make their own submissions in defence. The purpose of a trial is to both consider both whether a defendant is guilty and to what degree. To do this full representations are required, having qualified advocates on both sides increases the speed and fairness of the trial.
ReplyDeleteOK, point(s) taken, But there ARE cases which are not so "grey." Perhaps where lawyers could tell their clients that they are not able to honestly defend a not guilty plea but could put forward some mitigating circumstances. The ones where there will be no twist at the end like an episode of Ironside or Rumpole or whatever.
DeleteJim. (left my name off my original post)
Jim, you are wrongly assuming that the lawyers in question have failed in their professional duty (vastly unlikely) to advise their client they have no chance. The client sometimes decide to go ahead anyway (and sometimes they are in fact innocent). Still not so grey? Or is that now not so convenient?
DeleteWhatever. It's chicken feed compared to the cost of the Second Gulf War.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Iraqi claims, the due process of law appears to have shown them to be fraudulent. While everyone is entitled to be represented, ordinary members of the public like me cannot help but be worried by the fact that £900k of fees were run up under legal aid, and the criticism of the claim redoubles this concern.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned, this is an outrageously high amount, and some burden of costs should fall on the fraudsters who made the claims in the first instance. If the lawyers were on a CFA, they would have called a halt earlier. I'd like to see the accusers punished for their lying testimony.
As an ordinary member of the public, I completely agree that the accused needs an adequate defence; however, in this case the accused were the squaddies. These lawyers were ambulance chasers of the worst kind and were in a "no win, get their fee anyway" situation. They should be forced to repay everything they claimed from the public purse once it became apparent the claims were fraudulent. ( which, was probably when they started touting for business in Iraq). As an aside, the general public find it strange that they have to fork out £Ms to defend people such as Azil Nadir when he is spending thousands a night to stay in a hotel. If the publicly funded lawyers weren't ripping us off so blatantly in high profile cases they would not receive such approbrium. Rant switch off.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the ambulance chasers might be getting what they deserve (but I won't hold my breath!)
DeleteSo what about the Dept of Welfare and Pensions, which can declare someone guilty (is this the thin end of the EU 'justice' wedge???), arbitarily stop their benefit claim, i.e. guilty until or unless proven innocent, taking months to consider the case, then, worse, uphold their decision without informing the accused??? Has anybody in the DoJ stepped in and considered the nearly MILLION cases, yes you read that right, where claimants were sanctioned under smith's rules? Where's the outcry/opposition from the DoJ/legal people?
ReplyDeleteYour case might be stronger were there actually a Government Dept called 'Welfare and Pensions' It is in fact the Department FOR WORK and Pensions.
DeleteOur hand-picked moderation team has declined to accept a response to SLJP. The poster hurls around accusations of corruption and collusion between the judge and counsel (usually a clear sign that he has lost his case). This is not the forum to re-run legal battles, nor accusations of corruption.
ReplyDelete