To be absolutely furious at Brand's barrister?

Well yes, he's doing his job, but I have no idea how defence lawyers sleep at night, when all they do all day is try to get murderers and rapists to walk free.

Because they also prosecute as well, most of the time.

Because some people accused of rape or murder will not be guilty of it.

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of our society.

It's really easy.

If we didn't defend people to the fullest extent allowed under law then you couldn't have confidence in guilty verdicts.

It would also lead to way more successful appeals and guilty people walking free.

Because everyone deserves a fair trial.

I don't think we should criticise barristers for defending criminals. Most of them prosecute too. And if we or a family member we're falsely accused we would be grateful for their skills.

But it is possible to firmly believe that defence lawyers provide a vital role in society and to believe they can be criticised when they, like Winter, perpetuate rape myths and misogyny

A great friend of mine was a defence barrister. He sleeps very easily. It is not for him to determine the guilt , it was for him to put forward all of the defence arguments as well as he could. It is an essential part of our adversarial system. A defence barrister at the lowest level ( layperson's term there ) is testing the robustness of the prosecution case.

Sorry but I agree that he is just doing his job.

Surely it's for the judge to intervene in that case

OP I get what you’re saying, and yes as some people have said it’s his job, but bugger his wife/kids/family, it’s the victims who I’m sympathetic to 100% - any assault, no matter how long ago.never leaves you.

Yes, and the counsel for the other party can object to a line of questioning although it's the judge's decision whether to allow the objection.

Yep. People should really think before typing. There are plenty of examples of societies where people aren't afforded the ability to mount a proper defence when the state accuses them. None of them are very nice.

What do you mean he’s not doing his job very well?

A barrister cannot lie, engineer or create mitigating circumstances out of thin air so what do you want him to say? Barristers can only work with what they have and if ‘his wife will be upset' or 'they don't know how to explain to a ten year old girl that her Daddy's a rapist' is the best they’ve got then that’s all he can present to the court; no one is saying it’s “good” mitigation, just that it’s the only mitigation there is - it’s certainly no reflection on whether the barrister is good at his job or not and to say so is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean this is Russell Brand we’re talking about, I’m not surprised there aren’t any other mitigating circumstances.

Ian Winter trotted out all the outdated and discredited Rape Theories, that we all hoped had been left in the past.

Questioning the Anal Rape victim over why she didn’t roll over, kick him off and protest (very difficult when a grown man has penetrated her with his penis).

He’s a disgrace.

You can get a fair trial without stooping to worn out old tropes.

Oh do get lost. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse and/or goading?

Yes, I was rap'd by one who he is now facing another sexual violence charge involving minors.

I don't think 'his wife will be upset' or 'they don't know how to explain to a ten year old girl that her Daddy's a rapist' is good mitigation.

exactly this

Deliberately obtuse? In what way?

Bear in mind that Winter was acting under instruction from Brand. As long as it's not known to be factually untrue or inadmissible, the barrister has to say what their client tells them to say. If Brand wanted him to use that argument, he had no choice but to use it. For all we know Winter might have tried his best to persuade Brand not to use it, but been overruled.

It's all theory and opinion, so however much it might have been disagreed with or discredited, it doesn't fail the test on the grounds of being untrue, so it can legitimately be used in a defence case.

Indeed. I was actually quite happy with the government’s plan to get rid of jury trials in some cases. Most people don’t seem to have a clue how the law works.

The KC is doing a very difficult job.. putting forward his client’s mitigation when there isn’t really much to go on. Scraping the barrel really is the correct description.. but he will be taking instructions from his client. The barrister is just the voice of the convict.

What I am confused about though is why this KC was chosen by Brand at all. From his website he doesn’t appear to have a history of lots of defending of sexual crime.. it seems to be white collar stuff. Why take this case on in the first place?

(The cab rank rule doesn’t mean he must take it, he should only do so if he has the expertise etc).

Ian Winter's behaviour throughout the trial has been unprofessional imo, tbh this is the only part of the trial I have thought his actions relatively normal for a KC, it seems fairly standard for pre-sentencing statements in a case with little to go on for positive remarks about the defendant.

Ironically, his aggressive questioning of victims and reliance on using rape myths for his arguments may get his name in future legal textbooks as the reason for the law changing and it being made compulsory for the judge to explain rape myths to the jury before they start deliberations. Not a legacy many lawyers would want!

Anyway, ten years and six months for Brand. Plenty of time for him to wallow in self pity and ponder the cruelties of life. Hopefully his wife and children will be able to come to terms with having a rapist for a husband and father.

He is trying to get a the lower end of the sentencing by speaking about how it’s effecting innocent people like his child!! His child is innocent in all this and now because of who is dad is he had to deal with the consequences as well! The barrister is doing what is paid to do, we don’t know his personal opinions.

It's how our legal system works. Every defendant is allowed to give mitigating circumstances and judges sometimes will take family circumstances into account - especially if the defendant is, for example, a single mother with young children. It doesn't mean the judge has to do anything about it, it doesn't mean that the barrister personally believes his/her client deserves leniency, it's just what separates us from mob rule and lynchings. I have no time for Brand or any sexual predator, but organised and fair trials and sentencing are fundamental to a free and fair society.

Its nothing personal when it comes to barristers either prosecuting or defending. They are doing the job they have been assigned, and they do not have the right to refuse. If they are asked to prosecute they must prosecute and the same for the defence.

A barrister HAS to make these efforts, otherwise it could be argued that they have not made the best attempt at defending or prosecuting an individual, which then creates another potential legal problem.