To be absolutely furious at Brand's barrister?

That said though I acknowledge the barrister is simply doing his job but I don’t care how devastated his wife and kids are.

I think you'll find they almost always are used as mitigation in sentencing. From he'll lose his job and ability to support his family for driving offences, up.

Good, you'd hope so. So presumably he stick stick to them or the judge would have stopped him?

The barrister has a job to do, that is what he is doing. The same goes for any barrister or legal team , they are there to represent the accused and they will act on their instruction. The client will tell them what they want and the barrister can advise but at the end of the day the barrister is employed to do a job. I think its misdirected anger against the QC.

The judge did stop him several times during the trial.

I imagine post conviction it is the judge’s prerogative to ignore the rape myths and the dismissal of anal rape as “a quite short momentary failure to respect her consent” .

“quite short and momentary “ , to describe a violent painful anal rape that led her to seek hospital treatment.

And indeed the judge did slaughter both RB’s and Winter’s victim blaming in his sentencing remarks.

It is valid for people to react angrily to a barrister being so dismissive of rape.

However much we understand the importance and function of defence.

Not the victims?

@Flipperthepriest you are insufferable. Not everyone posting needs to understand the ins and outs of the legal system and the role of a criminal defence barrister, in order to share an opinion on Ian Winters comments.

Oof, did you really just use being single and/or not having kids as an insult? There are a lot of childfree posters on here who make really valid contributions, hell we even have an infertility forum for people who are going through that pain, and here you are trying to make out that's something to throw at a person who's said something you don't like. Crossing a line there.

Indeed they don't, which is why I haven't come remotely close to suggesting they do.

Possibly you're referring to my exchange with the poster who so charmingly just used being single (I'm married) as an insult? If so, you'll notice that my issue is with her comments about hating defence barristers, not with anything specific to this case.

If it's not that, please do quote the exact post of mine you've got an issue with, as obviously you wouldn't want to look like you've nothing to back up your insult.

oh well, that’s a good interesting thread torpedoed by grown adults bickering and name calling.

Again.

Well, if we'd like to get back on track, a couple of posters in this thread before that, erm, interlude have talked about the possibility of reform within the system. These were much more sensible ideas than OP and people like her making daft complaints about defence barristers putting their clients cases. Because there's plenty to criticise Brand's counsel for, but the pretty standard issue attempt to provide mitigation isn't it.

I was particularly interested in the proposal to require judges to talk to juries about rape myths. That sounds like a really positive idea. There's really no point trying to analyse any of this without thinking about systems.

Seriously??? Not the women who were simply at work doing their jobs when they were assaulted in front of other people who did not help them and are still impacted not only by the assaults but by the trial? Or the woman who was raped and left bleeding and degraded?

I thought you either worked for the CPS as a prosecution barrister, or a defense barrister in Chambers?

I didn't think you could do both , or either?

CPS employ some barristers but also regularly brief from independent chambers. So a barrister in chambers can be on either side of a case, though more likely to be defending.

Are you a Barrister?

Just wanting clarity , btw

Yes and no.

A barrister is still an officer of the court even while his primary duty is to his client. I highly doubt Brand instructed Winters to describe the rape as a quite short momentary failure to respect her consent. That will be the barrister trying to come up with a way to see it as not as bad as it might be seen. The thing is, he didn't convince the judge did he? He wasn't doing his job. He didn't manage to frame things as better, if anything he will have made Brand look even shittier.

I do think there some misdirected anger here. The judge in this case was on the ball with rape myths, and the majority seem to be nowadays, but an argument like that would probably have had some sway in the 90s and before. And even for the last 20 odd years with some judges.

Winters' remarks are a product of what our justice system has been. He's been around for years, steeped in the misogynistic, male dominated approach that has held sway (and still has some solid footholds) in our legal system. But the fact he can't, now that the majority of judges do not buy in to the old culture, find a way to talk about his client in a way that isn't dripping in rape myth shows that he is part of the problem that needs to be got rid of. God forbid he become a judge...

Do I need to be to know this?

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

Which is what we all need, now?

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

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.