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

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of being a free and democratic society. You remove that, and the whole thing falls apart.

The barristers I’ve known have regarded the law as being an almost sacred thing. When they take a case they talk as though it’s the law that they are defending, not the individual. I think that separation is at the heart of how they work with such reprehensible individuals.

I think you're the one who'd be struggling to sleep at night if one of your children got arrested for a crime they didn't commit - but no, it's fine, they're "clearly" guilty and everyone says they did it, so a mandatory life sentence is totally justified, no problems there.

@lurkingfromhome thanks so much for calling me ridiculous - does that make you feel better? I do think happen to think they are better humans than me and am sure I'm allowed an opinion.

Because it is their job, how could people not understand that, they don't have to like to person or what they have done but life is not 'well I don't like you so I won't do it' why is that hard to get?

Exactly this!

This was actually explained by a barrister in the very documentary the OP is discussing. She must have missed that bit.

@reallifeboogie bet you're glad you asked now aren't you? Why do some people have to be so rude and superior in their replies. It seems like it was a genuine question that didn't need some of the harsh responses given.

I don't particularly think the adversarial justice system we have in the UK is the best approach, but it is the one we've got and within that context defence (and prosecution) barristers are both vital.

Within the system we've got, if you didn't have defence barristers defending "clearly guilty" people, you'd end up with more miscarriages of justice and more convictions being overturned on appeal. They hold the prosecution to count to make sure evidence has been properly collected, alternative interpretations are considered and generally that when someone is being imprisoned they have been convicted to the standard "beyond reasonable doubt".

The standard "clearly guilty" in the eyes of public opinion doesn't mean much, you'll just end up with a modern day version of the witch trials.

You'd be exceptionally grateful for them if you or a loved one was falsely accused of a crime, or maybe even if you're guilty of one but there's major extenuating circumstances. Wouldn't you want someone to fight your corner then? You'd probably look clearly guilty to someone as well.

People are probably being a bit robust because we went through a thorough discussion of the judicial system on a thread about the Wimbledon tragedy - and because the OP admitted they knew nothing about it but posted a handwringing post anyway.

And you weren't called ridiculous, your opinion was.

Their job is to make sure the evidence is thoroughly tested.

If their client is not guilty the testing should prove that.

Personally I would rather anyone found guilty had a rigorous defence to put that guilt beyond reasonable doubt than potentially the wrong person being convicted.

Also, in England they can't refuse a case providing they are free and paid for it, regardless of their personal opinions of a client (cab rank rule)

'And you weren't called ridiculous, your opinion was.'

Potato/potahto 😂

Nope. People aren’t getting rich on legal aid fees.

That probably makes sense to you.

Definitely note. We were protesting cuts a decade ago and it’s only got worse.

It depends whether they are engaged on a private retainer or via legal aid.

Legal aid rates are low, very low indeed, many junior barristers doing legal aid work make less than minimum wage per hour.

If a person admits to their legal team they ARE guilty of the offence but want to plead not guilty then they will no longer represent them due to it being a conflict of interest. This is because cannot assert your innocence to a court knowing you are guilty due to not being able to knowingly mislead a court or allow you to do so.

What they can do if you admit you are guilty and plead guilty is; argue the prosecution has not made their case, that you are not guilty of the offence charged by reason of law, or argue for any other (non prohibited) reason that you should not be convicted.

Our legal system is not perfect but there is a basis that an accused deserves the right to a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers.
And that means an awful lot of horrible people need a defence barrister. A lot of defence barristers have also worked as prosecutors and some go on to become judges.
I watched the play ‘Prima Facie’ with Jodie Comer last year - it’s on at the cinema this September and is brilliant.
In it she plays a hugely successful defence barrister who sees a lot of what she does as almost being like theatre and she loves to win.
I won’t add a spoiler, but something happens to turn that perspective upside down. It’s well worth the watch if you are interested in finding out that makes a defence barrister tick, and then what happens when they view is challenged.

I believe the legal team will often be instrumental in suggesting a client considers pleading guilty, thereby giving a lower sentence, less time and public funds spent on court, and less traumatic time for witnesses.

Plus everything others said about ensuring a case is truly proven

This is an excellent explanation.

You are innocent until proven guilty and everyone is entitled to a defence.

Unless you witness a crime you don't know someone is guilty. And barristers who think they do know can destroy people's lives - I always thought about Stephan Kiskow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MurderoffLesleyMolseed. His team clearly thought he was guilty and ran a diminished responsibility defence at the same time as pleading not guilty. Unsurprisingly convicted.

I hope you are never accused of something you didn't do but if you are you will be very grateful barristers both defend and prosecute.

This was the question I was asked most often when I qualified as a barrister (even though I don't do criminal work).

The reasons have been well explained by some posters on this thread. For me, the easiest way to explain it is to think about what life would be like without defence counsel. No one would have any assistance in challenging the accusation of a crime. Charge would equal conviction. It would open the door to bias and corruption as no cases would be tested in open court. I prefer potential criminals having access to legal representation to that picture of a society.

In fairness, how could they? Most people don't understand barristers and solicitors first duty is to the court, that integrity is the most important attribute. Because we have a government that doesn't act within the law, has been subject to so many JRs and lost I've lost count.
The constitution and importance of the rule of law and separation of powers is the cornerstone of our democracy but it isn't taught in schools and more importantly people believe what they read in the Daily Mail, and believe government ministers when they attack lawyers for simply doing their job.

"If there is enough evidence to say they did it..."

Well who decides that? That's the whole point of a trial. Serious cases are heard in front of a jury in the Crown Court. A case would not get to Crown Court if the CPS did not believe that "there is enough evidence to say they did it..."

The CPS provides data on how many people get convicted etc and this is what they say:

In the 12 months to the end of December 2023 there were 69,553 completed prosecutions in the Crown Court of which 54,065 or 77.7% ended in a conviction.

That sounds like a lot of guilty people, right? So why are are barristers defending them you ask?

Well, if you look at the figures more closely, it turns out that of those 54,065 convictions, 49,059 had pleaded guilty. So there was no trial, it was just a case of the barrister pleading any mitigation.

So what about the other 20,000 cases (well, actually 69,553 - 49,059 = 20,494)? What happened there?

10,291 cases were dropped by the prosecution after the defendant had been charged. This happens for a variety of reasons but will include the defence team putting forward a defence which shows that there is not "...enough evidence to say they did it..."

And then 9,011 cases actually went to trial in front of a jury. I would guess that this is what you are most concerned about? Barristers defending a person in court.

Well, out of those 9,011 cases, there were 5,006 convictions. That is just 55%. So, for those cases actually going to trial in the Crown Court you have a 55/45 chance of being found guilty/not guilty.

When almost half of all defendants in a trial are found not guilty even though there was "...enough evidence to say they did it..." so that they were charged in the first place then this really does demonstrate the importance of defence barristers.

Source:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-3-2023-2024

ps, the similar figures for magistrates courts show 343,894 completed prosecutions and 287,848 (83.7%) convictions.

Of those 287,848 convictions, 267,611 were guilty pleas.

There were 23,794 trials and, of those 14,903 (63%) ended in convictions.

People are a lot more likely to be found not guilty in a trial at the Crown Court in front of a jury rather than in a Magistrates Court