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 Bar Standards Board Handbook:

rC15

.1 you must promote fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the client’s best interests;
.2 you must do so without regard to your own interests or to any consequences to you

Essentially their job is to be the barrister, not the judge, so regardless of their personal feelings they are obligated to put the interests of the client first.

I guess it's sort of similar to doctors in hospital that will try and save the life of any patient, even one that was brought in as the result of some horrific crime/attack/etc. Their job is to give medical care without discriminating/whether the person 'deserves' it iyswim.

Your last sentence explains it! Innocent until proven guilty.

Nice!

Honestly, for me, the difficult thing isn't representing someone you think is guilty, but prosecuting a case where you are convinced the person is innocent.

The cab rank rule means I can't pick and choose cases, legal aid rates are appalling and the hours and stress is horrendous. A lot of us do it because we have a desire to give everyone a voice, to ensure everyone has access to representation and a fair trial.

It's unnerving at first seeing how 'normal' people that are accused of convicted of awful things, can otherwise be. How murderers can be charming, child rapists can have a sense of humour, but yet know they have done unspeakable things. In that way it's a great leveler - that we don't know what awful hidden sides to their lives anyone has, but equally that we are all human and deserve treating with respect.

It's not my job to judge (that pays more 😜), it's my job to test the evidence, to give those without a voice the acting to be heard, and to ensure that no one is punished without due process.

I don't do it any more. I like to see my kids and I like to not live in and out of my overdraft, and doing 100 hour weeks often working out at leas than minimum wage.

@User47628978 Thank you for explaining - really interesting to read.

It makes sense to me.

Unlike you op, I am proud of living in a country where a person cannot be deprived of their liberty without a very thorough enquiry (which is essentially what a trial is) where all the FACTS are examined in detail on both sides and as much emotion is removed from the content as possible.

The process should be rigorous and balanced to ensure that an innocent person doesn't get sent to prison wrongly. And the best way of doing that is to have two barristers: one defending and one prosecuting, and that way, independent, objective observers (eg jurors) can gain a broad understanding of the case as possible from both perspectives.

This process makes a criminal trial as balanced and fair as it is ever going to be and I would love to know op what you would propose as an alternative system that would achieve the same results?

Of course criminal barristers acting on the side of the defense will know that a proportion of the people they represent are guilty and the scum of the earth but that has nothing to do with their professional objectives and the overall necessity to make our legal process as fair and unbiased as possible. If they are doing a good job, they should be able to remove all personal feelings about their individual client from the process, and focus on ensuring that they get as fair a trial as humanly possible, in order to ensure that the justice system overall is as fair as it can be.

All of us should be grateful that this system exists and one reason that I will not be voting Conservative is that the justice system in the UK has been quite deliberately deprived of funds by Conservatives who purport to be the party of law and order and yet in reality have closed hundreds of county courts and sought to to undermine the work of judges and lawyers who are some of the last remaining independent-minded, professional, largely incorruptible public servants in the land.

@Sondheimisademigod thank you 💐

Because they are well educated, professional people who believe in the law and a fair justice system, presumably.

Was thinking about late great George Carmen QC who was a barrister to be feared depending if he was prosecuting or defending. The Ken Dodd case was classic. Boxes of cash in the house and the Inland Revenue hot for a win. Ken got George and in a trial of pure theatre was found innocent by the jury. Worth a read. Prob a more light hearted case but Ken was looking at poss jail time and paying 10000s.

And they can only go off what their client tells them. If their client tells them they are innocent they must advocate for them - our justice system assumes everyone is innocent until proven guilty less proves otherwise.

However they also can't lie in court either so if the client tells them they are guilty they can't lie and say they aren't.

If you were accused of a crime, would you want someone to defend you??

It’s vital in any civilised society that people are innocent until proven guilty.

So you'd rather we didn't have them?

What if you or your child you'd been framed for a crime and the evidence was against you/them - but you were innocent? You'd rather not have that defence lawyer working for you?

Because everyone is innocent until proved guilty and everyone deserves a fair trial.

What, in your view, is enough evidence?

I haven't read all through yet but I think this is a very interesting thread and reminds me that for all its faults this country is not such a bad one. Imagine being on holiday in Moscow and being arrested for something you hadn't done.

The court’s job is to find them guilty if they are in fact guilty, and find them not guilty if they’re not. So a challenge to the prosecution is essential if the correct verdict is to be reached. That way, there is reasonable assurance against incorrect guilty verdicts- even then, sometimes the innocent are still convicted.

I get what you’re saying- the barrister often has to defend someone they believe is guilty of a horrible crime. But it’s part of the job and an important part of the justice system that they are committed to and believe in. It’s not necessarily part of the job that they enjoy and there are probably clients they find despicable.

Other professions have to help and safeguard despicable people too - doctors and other healthcare workers have to treat murderers, rapists and child abusers, and many other workers have jobs where they have to assist and care for criminals.

I asked the same question on here once after watching a relative get treated appallingly by a defense lawyer at the trial of a relative who abused him when he was about ten. I was told a) that they have no choice and b) that they need to make sure any conviction is watertight to avoid retrials and appeals. It made huge sense to me and really helped me understand in a more balanced way.

I don't do it any more. I like to see my kids and I like to not live in and out of my overdraft, and doing 100 hour weeks often working out at leas than minimum wage

same

No one is getting rich defending people on legal aid. Not even close.

Because they believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and that the Crown should be required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to deprive a person of their freedom. This can only happen when a defendant has representation good enough to hold the Crown to that standard.

Even if someone is obviously guilty there may be aspects of their background or mental health that impact what their sentence should be and where it should be served. You need representation to put those factors to the court.

I'm very glad people are willing to do these jobs, particularly given that many can't make a living doing it (some are subsidised by their partners' income for example, but they still do it because it is crucial to a fair society).

1. Professionally barristers are trained to adhere to the code of conduct and support the rule of law which requires that a fair trial means everyone has a right to representation, you can't refuse a case because you think you will lose and you do your best for your client. This sits deep within and trumps any sense of 'they've definitely done it'.
2. If someone has "clearly" committed a crime (not just murder but generally) (evidence overwhelming, no defence) then part of your job is to advise them of that and to plead guilty. You can't force someone to plead guilty obviously but most hardened criminals are realistic and are very familiar with the workings of the justice system and the benefit of pleading. It's not actually that common if there is zero defence for someone to persist in pleading not guilty because you get a discount on a sentence for a guilty plea. It's less for murder which is in a 'might as well have a punt on a trial' category for some people but still a discount.
3. Your own opinion doesn't matter - again this sits deep within you. The decider of 'clearly guilty' is the jury. It's not your job to form that conclusion. If you refused to represent someone just because YOU thought they were guilty (which professionally and ethically you can't) you would be substuting your own opinion for that of the tribunal that is legally tasked with making that decision.
4. Even if you think someone is 'clearly guilty', a jury may take a different view. An example is where you have a 'mercy killing' of a terminally ill person by a loving spouse. That is 'clearly' murder but juries some times aquit in those cases.
5. Ultimately though its about professional training. It's the same as saying to a surgeon, why would you operate on this murderer who has been brought in after a knife fight in which he killed his oppponent and is here now bleeding to death? Answer: because the surgeon is trained to save lives. That's their job. Their opinion of the patient doesn't matter. Their job is to get on with the surgery. The same is true of barristers practising in criminal defence.

Yes you are right but there are some people who are obviously guilty and there is overwhelming evidence proving their guilt.

But they choose to go to trial to further torment their victims.

These are the ones that I wonder how they sleep at night but understand that we still need them.

It looks reasonable on paper, for everyone to get a fair trial. But in my experience that’s not what defence lawyers do. They seem to treat the judicial process as a game and do anything they can think of to get their client off - without even giving a shit if they are guilty. The time I spent as a juror taught me that this country has a seriously broken justice system where rapists and drug dealers go free to terrorise society some more.

It's the jury's decision, not that of the barrister. For, ooh, about 800 years.

But in my experience that’s not what defence lawyers do. They seem to treat the judicial process as a game and do anything they can think of to get their client off - without even giving a shit if they are guilty.

That is their job though. To represent their client and to try to secure an acquittal if the client has pleaded not guilty. It DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY THINK THEIR CLIENT IS GUILTY. It's the jury's job to determine that.

Like I said above, if you think it is clear that the evidence will lead to a conviction then it is your job to advise the client of that and that they should plead guilty. The client can choose to take that advice or ignore it.

The way that the jury arrives at a correct verdict involves the prosecution case being properly tested and the defendant being properly represented.

If you are saying you want barristers to do a half arsed job because they have a private opinion that the person may be guilty, the whole system falls apart.