To ask how defending Lawyers/Solicitors sleep at night.

[lollilou]

When they are defending someone who is accused of a horrible crime and that they know are guilty yet have to come up with a defense to try to get a not guilty verdict? It must happen a lot, how could you live with yourself in that situation? What if the accused gets off then commits another crime?

*for the sake of the 1 innocent man.

The system should work better for everyone - so not guilty does actually mean innocent - and those who have a not guilty verdict can hold their heads up and know it's because they are innocent.

YABU

Having a defence is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system that everyone has regardless. It was what makes this country's legal system so great, look at China and Russia to see the impact of a partial system with no effective defence available is like. The statue of Justice shows someone blindfold and holding scales for a reason. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Defence lawyers do not 'make up a defence' for someone who is charged with an offence, to do so would be professional misconduct. They present a defence based on discussions with the accused. If the accused tells them that they committed the offence and they then run a defence e.g. an alibi that would be misconduct and probably contempt of court.

So how Does that account for a barrister changing a defence as a case progresses then?

Soundly.

A barrister may change the defence if the defendant discloses something new or if new evidence is introduced. It will be because new information comes to light which has a bearing on their case. Not because they are losing.

Ok I'll reword that - how does that explain a barrister changing the defence without speaking to the defendant, based on the answers a witness is giving - if he isn't making it up and only acting on the instructions of his client.

"So how Does that account for a barrister changing a defence as a case progresses then?"

because you can apply more than one legal theory to a set of facts and circumstances. And you can present more than one argument for any set of circumstances, especially if there are variables which are being contested.
You can run multiple and conflicting defences because the prosecution has to prove their guilt, the accused does not have to prove their innocence.
As such you could have a defendant saying that they are not guilty of assault because they didn't hit the accused at all during a confrontation.
If during the course of the trial it emerges that the defendant did in fact become involved in the confrontation physically, that is still not proof of their guilt (although it may turn some jurors against them) their defence counsel could and would still say that this does not prove guilt and argue that they still acted out of self-defence.
You could argue that someone didn't do x while also arguing that, in the alternative if they did do x then they did so because of a disease of the mind in te form of y. etc.

"based on the answers a witness is giving - if he isn't making it up and only acting on the instructions of his client. "

once again that is not making up a defence. that is attempting to apply established legal principles to facts being presented during the course of a trial.
Making up a defence would be stating "he's not guilty because for X reason he's entitled to act in such a manor" where X has never been a legal defence to such actions.
Reacting to witness questions and positing legal defences based on their version of events is not making stuff up. it's testing the validity of the prosecution case and testing whether it meets the legal threshold to discharge their burden of proof when seeking to convict someone.

If I had a pound for every time I've been asked this I might be fat cat by now . What IfImHonest and pannda and mayor said.

I sleep just fine thanks.

Ok that actually makes sense to me - but how is it acting on the clients instructions? Rather than winging it as you go along??

celtic was just about to say I would have made more if I'd had a £ for every time I'd been asked this question than all my years at the bar

But basically what ifimhonest said.

I was proud to be a criminal defence barrister and slept very well. Apart from always being skint.

Let us be very clear here no lawyer does crimina; defence work for the money!!! You can earn ten, twenty, thrity times more doing corporate/commercial work.

Defence lawyers do what they do because they believe in everyone's right to a fair trial.

Put it this way. If you were accused of something you hadn't done, but everyone thought you had, and the evidence against you was stacking up...wouldn't you want a defence lawyer willing to fight for you? Or would you want to be tried on how things looked?

mustbe you know that in your case the evidence you refer to was fact, but that is not always the case. Plenty of stuff ends up as evidence in police reports that is absolute horse sh1t. It is the barrister's job to test this.

And what everyone else said about the money. Being a criminal defence barrister in not lucrative (unless you are in the tiny minority of stars in this area and you could say the same about pretty much anything, e.g. being a nurse is not particularly lucrative but being a top nurse practitioner in a hospital is much more so).

Read this with interest.

Criminal "Justice" is a hard concept to understand if you are a mother of a victim, father of a suspect, child of an accused, wife of a convict.

The Criminal Justice System has no winners. Most professional advocates and Judges know that. They can't rewrite history, they can't change terrible things that have happened to people. Most of them rarely get thanked, few- very few are well paid considering their experience, skills and as the OP pointed out the professional confidence in your abilities and ability to tackle dispassionately duties which raise passion in all right thinking people.

They ALL whether defending or prosecuting have a primary duty to the court and to the lady with the sword who sits on the top of it. Not to police, clients, families, colleagues or your own self interest and an early lunch.

Most serious matters are dealt with before a Judge. In my experience it is exeptionally rare to find a Judge who would allow shoddy and underhand tactics. Most things that happen in criminal courts are governed by a tightly controlled set of rules on procedure a and lot of an advocate's job actually boils down to making complicated things simple.

It is a cornerstone of the Criminal Justice System that suspects are represented. No matter how serious the allegation. It might be your son's DNA on a cigarette butt that ends up at the scene of a burglary. It might be your daughter's on a scarf found wrapped round a strangled victim's neck.

euro yes I see that too - but it was denied that there was a police report at all - which is what I don't understand - how can that happen - that the police were in my house on a particular night is a fact - arguing about why they were there, etc, that I could understand - but this was a denial that they were there at all.

That's why I am so puzzled.

Also why were my Childs school records admissible as a victim, but the defendants - that would have shown a pattern of violent aggressive behaviour towards other children my Childs age - not???

Is a victim held to a different standard than an accused.

Why did no-one wake the sleeping juror?

I have loads of questions - and will have have any answers. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

I used to believe in our system - I don't any more. I would never, ever report it if anything happened to me - and if anything happened to one of my children again - I would never report that either - and that's a pretty damning view of a system that is supposed to support victims.

*and will never have any answers

Mustbe - I will try and answer a couple of your questions. Background- I've worked as a lawyer in the UK and Far East and the UK, with it's jury system and appeal system is much, much better. Not perfect, but better than any other system I know of.

School records - the judge would have had to decide on this at an earlier hears and would have ruled on what is and is not admissable and have given reasons. I can't speculate on what they might have been, not knowing the facts.

Victim & accused held to different standards - it sounds harsh, but the victim is a giver-of-evidence, just like anyone else giving evidence. No, there are no different standards. There is no special weight given to either a victim, accused, police officer or anyone else's evidence.

Sleeping juror - sorry, no idea.

I've also been a juror, so seen it from the other side. You have to be really, really sure before finding anyone guilty. When they say "beyond all reasonable doubt" they mean it. If a juror isn't sure, then that juror will vote not guilty.

And, yes, I have always slept well at night. That doesn't mean lawyers don't question what we do and who we are acting for (in commercial law as well as criminal), but everyone who is entitled gets legal representation.

I would love for all those who are so scathing of the mere suggestion that that criminal lawyers don't earn megabucks to actually come up with some stats to support their assertion that we are all lying.

Rather than just keep repeating that it is all bollocks.

I would also like people to realise that barristers and solicitors are on completely different pay scales and not just keep yelling "Barristers earn oodles of money."

Very, very irritating.

Mustbe - was the police report ever produced in evidence? If not then you will probably find that it doesn't exist in which case you might need to look elsewhere for the people who let you down. If a document doesn't exist it is pretty understandable that a lawyer will put it to a witness that the events it is supposed to record never actually happened.

And what taxiforme said.

kungfu - yes it was in the evidence presented to CPS as part of the charging decision.

I checked this with the OIC before and after the hearing.

Then your issue is very much with the CPS for failing to adduce it in court.

What wasn't was his school records - the police never approached the school - this despite the fact that they wouldnhave showed a clear and documented pattern of violence against children the same age as the victim, at the relevant period of time.

(as an aside I believe they would also point to further victims - but that's by the by for this thread).

Kungfu quite possibly yes - there are lots of questions I would like to have answere about potential evidence by the CPS/Police - but I can't find anyone prepared to answer them

It is everyone's human right (as mandated by law) to have the right to a fair trial. You can't pick and choose who gets treated fairly in that way.