In a row with someone that defence and prosecution are held to the same evidential standards my understanding of a trial is a defence barrister does not have to "prove" anything, they have to provide a reasonable doubt, a prosecution barrister has to "prove" and provide evidence for things.A defence barrister can put forward a theory, a prosecution barrister has to put forward FACTS. They do not operate under the same burden of proof, because "proof" is not the job of a defence barrister, reasonable doubt it.That is the basis of the English legal system. You may not like that but there you go.I do not think the defence barrister breeched anything - because I have had the difference in requirements of the 2 explained to me fully, by the professionals I mentioned below including a therapist and a CPS Barrister.
So a defence barrister does not need "proof of theories", a prosecution barrister must prove their case.
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.
Legal matters
Barristers have I got this right
13 replies
WeekendsAreHappyDays · 28/02/2014 15:16
OP posts:
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.