Defence Barristers.. somebody explain them please?

[reallifeboogie]

I don't understand how somebody can be a defence barrister to somebody who has done a horrendous crime. Watching Soham murder trial.

I don't know anything about criminal prosecution

I'm glad that there are people who do it. It ensures that people get a fair trial which we should all want for everybody.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and many people don’t plead guilty so they are entitled to legal representation to fight their case.

Someone has to do it so trials are fair. Just because someone is accused doesn't mean they did it. Everyone should be presumed innocent. Barristers cannot represent them if they have admitted guilt to them and are going to plea not guilty.

Making sure people get a quality defense is a sign of a civilised society, surely?

They are a massive part in our justice system. Without them (and good ones at that!) Appeals would be upheld here there and everywhere and sentences challenged!
Couldn't do it myself, but I do respect the job!

You'd rather someone was jailed for life because the police said so?

Defence Barristers can't pick and choose who they defend. They are assigned cases .

You'd be pleased they exist if you were falsely accused of a crime. They hold the police and prosecutors to account, among other things.

We have an adversarial justice system. It’s based on the principle that the two sides put their arguments out and the truth will prevail. In order for that system to work, both sides need equal representation. Proper defence representation is therefore crucial if you believe in justice - you are playing your part.

If you are a criminal barrister, you operate on the taxi cab rule - if you are qualified and available, you take the case. Many do both prosecution and defence work.

And you can’t “represent someone you know to be guilty” in the sense you mean. Innocent until proven guilty. If someone confesses to you that they did it, you cannot put forward a case that contradicts that - all you can do is put the prosecution to proof and find any holes in their case, because it is their job to prove the person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

What's the alternative @reallifeboogie ?

Fair trials and a right to a defence is part of being a civilised and just nation.

Cab rank rule

Cab rank rule: statement of the Four Bars (barcouncil.org.uk)

Something not understand by the Conservatives when they attack lawyers

The cab rank rule is a bedrock obligation for the independent referral Bar. The rule means that barristers cannot discriminate between clients, and that they must take on any case provided that it is within their competence and they are available and appropriately remunerated.

The cab rank rule promotes access to justice. It means that clients will not be deprived of the advocate of their choice because the client or the client’s cause could be seen as objectionable or unpopular. People with unpopular causes or accused of serious offences do not need the additional challenge of having first to persuade a lawyer to take them on.

Barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them.

Imagine if we didn’t have them. Do you honestly not see the reason that we have defence teams who give their all to allow a full and robust defence?

It doesn’t matter what the crime is. The the crown cannot prove that the accused is guilty then the accused must go free, or we end up with innocent people in prison. If the defence don’t give a full and robust defence using every argument available then the police and the prosecutions services will get away with doing sloppy work because they know they don’t have to fight a case, and then innocent people go to jail.

We need defence lawyers to make the best case they can using any legal Avenue they can. It holds the police and prosecution to a standard, and ensures cases must be proved. Yes, guilt people go free. Nothing is perfect. But it’s a talk site better than living in a country with show trials where the verdict is already decided and people and condemned with no chance to defence themselves and no way out.

Everyone deserves a defense in court. Even though it's obvious they've done something terrible there still must be due process and fair trial. Or, the person could be innocent.
Criminal defenders find their work extremely rewarding, and frustrating. My cousin does business litigation but I know someone who used to do criminal. It's an important part of the judicial system. I have great admiration for them.

I never said we shouldn't have them. I'm asking how somebody can stand there and defend somebody who has clearly murdered somebody. If there is enough evidence to say they did it then how can somebody stand therr and defend them. I appreciate its innocent until proven guilty.

if you were accused of a crime do you think you should be denied access to a lawyer??

Are you old enough to remember the Iranian hostage siege, OP? after that was over there was a trial of the remaining hostage takers when they were defended in court by barristers paid for by the British taxpayer - a trial, as someone said, that they probably would not have got in their own country.

You know what? that makes me rather proud of our judicial system. Open and due legal process; which, as someone else said (about Clinton, but applicable here), even the biggest asshole deserves.

If that courtesy can be afforded to the accused at Nuremberg, it can be afforded to everyone else.

Because they believe in the law and the due process and want to make sure those fuckers get a truly fair trial so when they’re sent down it was done properly.

This doesn't make sense. You've said everyone's innocent until proven guilty but what if they "clearly" murdered someone . do you mean if they confessed? In which case the lawyer would help represent them in terms of sentencing

They do it because everyone is entitled to legal representation. Even if its a horrendous crime, even if the person is clearly guilty.

Without everyone being entitled to legal representation we would soon have kangaroo courts.

Because they understand why it is necessary, and how the country would be without it. So they do it, no matter how disgusted they are by the act they are defending. It’s an incredibly important job, it something they should be proud of and they do it because we need it.

What do you mean 'clearly' murdered someone? would you like a list of people where the 'evidence' was enough but actually turned out not to be?

Who are you, or the barrister you are imagining, to say “well you clearly did it” without a trial? That’s literally the point of the trial. In Ian Huntley’s example, his initial defence was “it wasn’t me”. The barrister acted on those instructions, knowing the prosecution would be putting their case forward. If in fact it turned out that evidence wasn’t that strong, his work would be crucial - eg exposing gaps in witness evidence. Then he changed his defence to “they died but it was an accident” - intent is core component of a murder charge so the defence barrister than acted on those instructions. If the prosecution couldn’t make out intent, it wouldn’t be murder but manslaughter. Literally the whole point of the process is to get to the truth through challenging both sides. Barristers on both sides are doing their part in that.

If you haven’t read the Secret Barrister, I would really recommend that you do so if you want to understand a system you admit you don’t know about.

Even if someone has committed the worst imaginable crime, and the evidence appears to be undeniable, the police and prosecution still have to meet certain standards and jump through certain hoops in order to get a guilty verdict. It's the defence barristers who hold them to that, and stand ready to jump on any errors, which means the prosecution has to make sure their case is watertight.

This means that if you are ever falsely accused of a crime, it will be much much harder for them to convict you, because all these obstacles are in place.

So if it helps, try to think of defence barristers as people who help protect you, and that we should be grateful for them.

Indeed. Timothy Evans clearly murdered his wife and child. He even confessed.

Shame they'd already hanged him by the time they found out someone else had actually done it.