To be absolutely furious at Brand's barrister?

😂😂😂😂😂

Sorry? They work for free if they can't win the case. The whole crux of British justice is you're entitled to a defence.

No Solictors or Barristers should get a penny (or get a hugely reduced rate) in legal aid for anyone found guilty… let’s see how keen they are on upholding the law then.

Also, no legal aid for those already incarcerated.

When found guilty of something comparable to rape?

Plenty of women walk out of court more or less scot free because their solicitor has used the “think about the kids” mitigation. It stands to reason that Brand’s barristers would do the same. He’s just doing his job. He wouldn’t be earning £stupid per hour if he didn’t.

I have left court on more than one occasion in my job to comfort a bereaved family
member during a trial when the defence barrister gets going.
The worst was when one convicted double child murder was described by defence counsel as “only having a baseball bat” (the others had machetes) during the trial of those assisting the offenders.
Dreadful, despicable, yes.
But I would not do my job as a detective without them.
Suspects must have a fair trial and a robust defence or all kinds of wrongs will happen.
Our criminal justice system is flawed, an imperfect system, but it is still better by far than that of many places.

One thing I would say in the barristers defence around the use of the word "vulnerable" is that it was to reject the

prosecutions submission that the victims were particularly vulnerable in law.

Their vulnerability was not being refuted to argue that this meant they had consented or should have been more robust in refusing or fighting Brand off or the like, it was to speak to sentencing where if the judge accepted they satisfied the legal definition of particularly vulnerable that would be an aggravating factor and Brands sentence would be increased.

The judge agreed with the defence in respect of that aspect of sentencing.

I remember the same “outrage” about “who would stoop to defend Ian Huntley?”.

As a former criminal solicitor it has been my misfortune to have to defend some really vile people. Our professional rules mean you cannot turn them awaynand if after advice they persist in obvious rubbish thats what you must do.

When the verdict or sentence comes in and they get what you may think they deserve your cheer inwardly but you have done yout job and repsented them as best you csn.

RB's family circumstances were not at all what I was referencing here, I have no ill will towards RB's children, I think we can all sympathise with the position they have been landed in and to a lesser extent, their mother, who obviously has a tough road ahead of her, so yes I guess fine for it to be raised, though personally, my feeling rightly or wrongly is that this responsibility lies with RB himself not the court?

Perhaps my message was curt (I tend to visit these threads in very short bursts between all else in my day, so sorry), but.......

My point was in relation to the following (apologies I am paraphrasing on each statement for speed between calls), which to me very much sounded and certainly now read as if they serve to create public mistrust/loss of faith and from a victim perspective, following a guilty verdict being handed down, unforgivably dismissive of the gravity and impact of the crimes, most specifically humiliating and targeted victim blaming, most worryingly deterring reporting in the future. I suppose I am thus placing these within the "Rape myths" category, against the backdrop of what should fall within a Core 5 duty?

"was quite a short... momentary total failure to respect her consent"
How long until a momentary total failure becomes unacceptable in law? Does a victim get to call how "momentary" their lack of consent may be voided by the law?

"not particularly vulnerable....... considering the sort of persona, and the sort of sex he would engage in".
Does any woman need to be first vulnerable to be a victim of rape or SA? If she knew of RB's tendencies, did this mean thiss absolved her of any need to consent? Does no not mean no if she is not vulnerable? Did the circumstances described in all testimonies not count as vulnerable, when the crimes are established to have occurred?

Brand is fundamentally a different person now from the man he was at the time of the crimes"
The whole "he's found Jesus now and his wife says he's a great husband even though she also stated he couldn't be trusted to be monogomous, so therefore deserves less of a punishment makes zero sense to me. If a person commits murder twenty years ago, but becomes a different person, are they not to be jailed?

You know, if defense lawyers don't rigorously represent their clients, it leaves room for appeal.

The 10 and a half to 7 years isn't part of the mitigation. It's usual for a prisoner to serve 2/3 of a custodial sentence in prison and be released on licence (wearing tag, reporting to parole officer) for the last 1/3. It is still a 10 and a half year sentence.

The mitigation was applied to the sentence for the rape, which would have been 10 years (making the total sentence 11 and a half years) but was reduced to 9 years.

The three counts of assault were sentences of 18 months, 9 months and 8 months - these three run concurrently so effectively 18 months added to the 9 years. The 18 month sentence was reduced from 2 years to allow for 'totality' - i.e. had 2 years been added to the other sentence, taken as a whole it would have fallen beyond sentencing guidelines and been seen as excessive (giving ground for appeal).

So the full sentence is:

9 years - rape (reduced from 10 years by mitigation)
Plus:
18 months - assault (reduced from 2 years to allow for total not being excessive)
Incorporating concurrently
9 months - assault
8 months - assault

The judge allowed 1 year's mitigation on the rape count for -

• No significant previous convictions
• 17 years had passed since the last of the offences
• Brand's charity work and support of those with addictions
• The impact on his children

It's fairly standard.

His sentence is and always will be (pending any appeals) 10 years 6 months.

It's a common misconception that the only sentence is a custodial one and that if you're not in prison you're no longer serving.

It is common in practice for part of the sentence to be non-custodial. This is to allow rehabilitation and reintegration into society whilst still under supervision with the ability to recall them to prison.

I’m not belittling your views on this, but I am interested in your views on how the judicial system should be run if a defendant’s offence determines their right to representation?

I meant - people make their own choices. I know what choices I would not make.

Yes, yes "just doing his job". We've heard that before.

Why society holds these men & their profession in such high regard is beyond me. If ever an old boys club needed shattering, it's the justice system.

His job I guess. There are a few jobs however, even in my particular field, that I would not chose to do as they feel wrong on so many levels.

I've lost track of all the different threads on this case and what I have and haven't read so apologies if this has already been explained on this one but what was the deal with the remarks made by the defence lawyer - about RB's “short and momentary failure” to respect consent? Is this sort of admission of guilt typical in sentencing even if the defendant has plead not guilty? Or is it to be expected if guilt has been established? Would RB have instructed him to say this or will he be furious? I wasn't expecting it at all.

Can someone explain why the time to be served has been reduced to 7 years from 10 and a half? What was the specific mitigation for this?

Firstly, barristers don't have a choice. They operate by the cab rank rule, i.e. they cannot refuse instructions and have to do their job properly. That's because we recognise that everyone is entitled to a proper defence irrespective of what they are accused of. Surely you realise that the fact that someone has been accused does not automatically make them guilty? If you were arrested tomorrow for, say, a murder of which you were totally innocent, would you feel that it was remotely fair for you to be deprived of legal representation purely because of the nature of the offence you have been wrongly accused of?

Secondly, if you think that lawyers on legal aid get a fat payout you are totally deluded. Legal aid pay rates are way below private pay rates and the discrepancy gets worse every year.

Do quote where the Bar Standards say that a barrister cannot cite his client's family circumstances when making a plea in mitigation.

This is a plea in mitigation to the judge. The tone is utterly irrelevant to anyone else. The judge will have heard and indeed made countless pleas in mitigation and will be perfectly well able to weigh it up and discount anything unhelpful. It is perfectly correct to point out that Brand's children are innocent and will suffer, and the judge will be perfectly well aware of whose fault that is whilst also considering the extent that it should affect the sentence, if at all.

You think stating you're a barrister on an anonymous forum establishes your credentials? Jesus.

Which is what we all need, now?

Yes, to establish your credentials to state "facts" ?