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

You know what tho?

I'm a serious abuse survivor and I have worked with hundreds of others. I know what happened to me, yet I am expected to engage with a system that believes my abuser is innocent when they are not, and I am expected to face someone intelligent and educated who is using that capacity to get the abuser off, when they are guilty. It is wrong from start to finish and they get PAID for it. PAID.

OP, on your basis, who decides that this someone is 'clearly' guilty, as you put it? You? What makes you qualified to say so? You've heard no evidence. The media? You don't think they have a history of biased reporting and jumping to wrong conclusions?

Can you not see from the info given in this thread that is is entirely BECAUSE of defence barristers that trials are properly conducted and much more likely to lead to a prosecution and fair sentencing that then doesn't fall down at the first appeal because due process wasn't followed.

If we didn't have defence teams we would be a police state. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing, yes even Ian Huntley. I watched the programme and it was fascinating and shocking in equal measure. I think, and correct me if I am wrong, but one of the jurors voted not guilty?

Everyone is entitled to legal representation. You seem to be prejudging people and deciding that a person is guilty without all of the evidence /arguments being heard. The whole point of the justice system is that the prosecution gives their case, the defence theirs and on the actual evidence a verdict is made. Without that we have no justice, without the accused being represented legally we have no justice. There are still countries where the accused does not have the benefit of legal representation and are dealt with in kangaroo courts. I would not want that.

And how do we know the evidence is genuine and sufficiently compelling without a barrister to comb through it?

This.

And most barristers tend to do a mixture of prosecution and defence work. My dad always said that working as a defence barrister helped him become a better prosecutor.

A decent justice system will ensure everyone is represented. Will ensure investigations are fair and the court process is fair.

You only need to look at the Post Office scandal to realise how badly justice can go wrong.

I'm asking how somebody can stand there and defend somebody who has clearly murdered somebody.

because our role is to test the evidence and challenge the hypothesis. We don’t make up, manipulate or otherwise misrepresent the evidence or law and our first duty is to the court.

Imagine, OP, you were in a country where you weren't allowed legal representation and falsely accused of a crime. You're thrown into jail and then end up in a court where there is no defence because you're "clearly" guilty. Everyone says so. The police arrested you and the prosecuting lawyer has put up a good case against you. It's obvious you did it, agrees everyone. What then?

Exactly.

Once you learn about some of the awful miscarriages of justice you realise how important decent defence barristers are.

How much do they charge per day?

Always wonder how much my ex husband paid for a 4 week trail when he tried to murder me
Hmmm

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?

Yes to this. It's why we have something called the Innocence Project here in the US. They have managed to set many people free, sometimes after years of incarceration.

Everyone is innocent until a conviction.

If you were accused of a murder you did not commit, you would want to be represented

Or you are of an ethnicity/from a cultural group or community associated with crime. And the police assume you have done something/frame you for something.

The problem is, who decides that someone has "clearly" murdered someone or that "there is enough evidence to say they did it"? That's what a criminal trial is there to show- it's not a decision to be taken by a lawyer before the trial has begun. You're starting from the position that the person is guilty, which is the opposite of what justice requires.

Imagine that you were charged with murder. You know you didn't do it but the police think you did. You would presumably want to be represented in court. Would you judge the person who represented you? After all, there was obviously enough evidence for you to be charged so just lock you up, eh?

You also have to remember that defence barristers are not allowed to lie to the court. If they know their client committed the crime, they are not allowed to say that they did not. If they know they were at place X when the crime was committed, they are not allowed to say they were at place Y etc.

@reallifeboogie I totally agree with you but got battered on here after saying the same thing after watching the James Bulger documentary. I understand the principle but can't understand how they are able to do it. They are obviously much better humans than I am and I'm glad they're able to step up and do it.

It's not about being a "better human". It's a job that is part of a robust judicial system. It's nothing to do with who they are as a person. That's ridiculous.

Everybody deserves a fair trial and unless the client confesses, they do not know the client is guilty even is the evidence is overwhelming.

And when they do know the client is guilty, somebody needs to act for them to ensure the rule of law is carried out and the conviction is sound.

reallifeboogie · Today 12:16
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”

Because it’s their job and they believe in the justice system.

I agree with you Op. I've no idea how they sleep at night.

Every person accused of a crime has the right to defend themselves against the accusation. Everybody should have the right to defence. It’s a basic principle of a civilised democracy that we all have the right to justice.

A barrister is there to present the best case they can for their client on the evidence that is available. They are doing this job based on the ethical principles about what justice is and what it should look like.

If they are unable to make a solid defence because the evidence is overwhelming they would have discussed this with the client. They would talk about the consequences and risks of going to trial versus the benefits at sentencing if you plead guilty and show contrition.

But evidence often isn’t overwhelming. What seems “cast iron” guilt based on a newspaper headline may not be if you actually view all the evidence. So absolutely, everyone, however certain the public are of their guilt, should have the right to present their case.

You'd rather someone went to jail for life without the evidence being robustly and publicly tested, meaning that effectively you're accepting the word of the police that this person is guilty?

How would YOU sleep at night knowing that; knowing that one day, that person jailed on the say so of the police might be you or one of your DC? and with that system, there's no appeal. No retrial, no release after years like the man wrongly jailed for rape. Because, as well all know, police never get it wrong, do they?

slidingdoorsmoments · Today 12:58
I agree with you Op. I've no idea how they sleep at night.”

Whats the alternative? Just take the word of police/accusers at face value? Great, until one day it’s you.

Everyone is entitled to due process and defence by a qualified person.

I do understand what you’re saying.
I often wonder how some of them sleep at night when they are defending peados and rapists etc.

But things aren’t always black and white and there needs to be someone who does the job of saying hang on this person may be innocent or the extenuating circumstances means it’s not black and white.

E.g. A murderer may not have been in the right frame of mind or acted in self defence, whereas without a defence barrister then they would just be guilty of murder.

I often wonder how some of them sleep at night when they are defending peados and rapists etc

You missed out the crucial word - alleged. Until convicted, someone is an alleged rapist/terrorist/paedophile/murderer, thanks to the presumption of innocence.

For money op. It’s a job. An extremely good defence lawyer who is good at getting people off, or at least very reduced sentences, are going to be very high in demand for criminals, and their fees will reflect this. I guess it’s easy for some people to become desensitised to what they’re doing and the criminals they’re defending, but for the vast majority the do actually want to win the case, whether the defendant is guilty or not.